The future threats are not going to be gradual. The very fact you claim that as gospel truth shows you really don't have a good grasp of the science. If you fear people calling attention to a problem more than the problem itself, you are not operating in the realms of reason.

Earth has been very much warmer than it is now, but there were no humans around. If it gets hotter and keeps hotter, there also will be no, or at the very best far fewer, humans around. That's the problem.

"Sounds like". Wonderful science! Yes, human CO2 output is not a massive number, but the Earth has rather-well-balanced sinks to counter the natural CO2, so adding 5% (if that is the amount) is enough to tip the balance. If you have a scale balanced perfectly with two 1-tonne weights on either side, even a gram can cause it to swing. That's the whole point and I can't believe I had to explain it to you. Hint: If you think you can debunk an entire field of science by pulling some numbers out of your ass and using your intuition and opinion to judge their weight, you are doing it incredibly wrong. Whoever educated you should feel deeply ashamed, as they did a terrible, terrible job.

Every single shred of evidence points to them not being correct. If one of them was correct, and did not base their conclusion on opinion, they could win the Nobel prize in a heartbeat, and have endless funding for whatever science they want to work on for the rest of their lives. It's rather telling that they haven't.

By your logic a soldier in a trench knows more about the progress of an entire war than the generals... Really?

And those changes in climate happened much slower than the current climate change. It's strange you accept those findings, but turn your nose up in disgust at the current explanation for climate change which was discovered using the exact same methodology. It's almost as if you use science when it suits you, and ignore it when it doesn't. That can't possibly be, though, as that would make you a terrible human being.

The vast majority of research points to it being less hospitable, and there is a lot of good evidence that with rising temperatures come more heating feedbacks which will accelerate the process. This is not some esoteric fact. You can keep sticking your fingers in your ears and going "la la la I can't hear you la la la la" if you want, but future generations will look back on lazy attitudes such as yours with disgust, and quite rightly so. You are eschewing science because of intellectual laziness or straight-up deceit. Your stance is that of the anti-vaxxer, the young-Earth creationist, or the Mayan end-of-the-world lot. It's pathetic.

No. "Climate" refers to trends in weather.

You seem to be confusing "everyone" with "you", which isn't surprising as you are clearly a selfish bastard.

If you cite "global cooling" as the "next big thing", then clearly you get your scientific understanding from the mass media, and not scientific journals. As such you have just informed everyone you don't really follow the scientific findings, or at least don't understand the difference between a peer-reviewed journal and the tabloid press. As such you don't really have a very trustworthy opinion on this subject, as you have not even attempted to differentiate between guesswork and demonstrable fact.

The blade only cuts both ways when you start making stuff up.

We are not working on "is it real". You clearly don't know much about this.

So because of the food pyramid, climate science is wrong?? Distrust science all you want, but if you refuse to research the findings of the IPCC you are engaging in science denialism, not some sort of quest for truth. AGW is not a craze, it's a phenomenon which probably will have some rather expensive and difficult effects on human civilisation. This article is about farmers not believing in science - that is not "scientific findings", but conjecture of non-experts. If you equate their opinions and gut-feelings with actual scientific research, you should sue your old school, as they failed you.

The questions you pose have already been answered, and the answers are easy to find and understand. There really is no excuse for not knowing them and still posting in a discussion such as this. It makes people think the questions haven't been answered (as why else would a rational person ask said questions?). Your laziness isn't helping the discussion.

Neither of your arguments have anything to do with science. Neither are even arguments of any kind, just blather.

It's not scepticism, though - it's cynicism. There's a big difference, even though both positions start by not believing the claims. A sceptic will review the evidence and be willing to change their position. A cynic will hold on to their position regardless.

The climate scientists have taken that into account, and there is still worrying amounts of warming. Read the IPCC's reports and you'd know, and you'd think twice about making posts which make you look so ignorant.