Climate change "science" predictions, as Alex123's posts demonstrate, are based on insufficient which qualifies the predictions as commissions of the informal fallacy known as , a.k.a.:
-the fallacy of insufficient statistics/the fallacy of insufficient sample: basing broad conclusions regarding the statistics of a survey from a small sample group that fails to sufficiently represent all the data
-generalization from the particular/leaping to a conclusion/hasty induction/secundum quid: inductive generalization based on insufficient evidence; essentially making a hasty conclusion without considering all of the variables
Relating again to Alex123's posts, climate change "science" also involves the commission of the informal fallacy called cum hoc ergo propter hoc. a.k.a., correlation proves causation--a faulty assumption that correlation between two variables implies that one causes the other. In this case, the fallacy is committed when the claim is made that global warming has an anthropogenic cause. It also involves the informal fallacies of the single cause (causal oversimplification)--it is assumed that there is one, simple cause of an outcome when in reality it may have been caused by a number of only jointly sufficient causes (which takes us back to hasty generalization); incomplete comparison – where not enough information is provided to make a complete comparison; regression fallacy--ascribes cause where none exists. The flaw is failing to account for natural fluctuations. It is frequently a special kind of the post hoc fallacy; argumentum ad populum (appeal to widespread belief, bandwagon argument, appeal to the majority, appeal to the people)--where a proposition is claimed to be true or good solely because many people believe it to be so; and an appeal to emotion--where an argument is made due to the manipulation of emotions, rather than the use of valid reasoning, in this instance it is a special appeal to fear where the argument is made by increasing fear and prejudice not only towards to the opposing side but aslo by appealing to an imminent yet somehow unknown future danger.
Science has never been completely divorced from politics/religion (otherwise Socrates wouldn't have been executed; Giordano Bruno wouldn't have been burned at the stake, Nicolaus Copernicus wouldn't have feared publishing his works on heliocentricsm, Johannes Kepler would have been paid proper attention to until Newton utilized his work; Leonardo da Vinci wouldn't have been accused of being a heretic, and Galileo Galilei wouldn't have been investigated by the Roman Inquistion. Today, our "religion" comes in the form of "secular humanism", personified in the fatuous propoganda of global warming spokespeople like Al Gore, Oprah Winfrey and Kofi Annan.) However, a tell-tale sign of bad science and pseudo-science is how many logical fallacies it contains. In the case of climate change, the fallacies are glaring.
So, before you join the herd and start believing that your actions are ruining the planet, save yourself some grief and first think critically about what so called climate change "science" and its inane spokespeople are actually saying. If you do, I think you'll find that it devolves to a mob-like mentality where basic human experiences of guilt are manipulated by alleged moral do-gooders to serve their agendas, which themselves boil down to just one more way to get your tax dollars. You wouldn't give them up so easily if you didn't think they'd actually "save the planet," would you?