I think you are spending too much time listening to the media and not enough listening to what academics are saying.

Anthropologists have learned to identify historical warming periods in our history because they are characterized by an explosion of human civilization and life on earth around the world. A large part of the reason the earth currently holds 7 billion people without the mass starvation predicted by academics in the 1960s is because of the current warming period that started around 1870.

As for current academic thought on there matter, there is a large amount of work that predicts up to 2C of more warming could continue to be beneficial for humans. These facts appear in the IPCC reports as summarized here, for example https://www.netzerowatch.com/richard-tol-moderate-global-war....

Also this recent study predicts up to 3C of warming could be beneficial https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/12/18/3575/htm#B4-energies-12...

I keep reading this over and over, everywhere. Yet sea level rise at the Dutch coast has not accelerated and is at a steady 1.5-2mm/yr for over a century.

https://www.klimaatfeiten.nl/gevolgen/zeespiegel/nederland-z...

So I guess it’s a good thing we didn’t listen to the old science and go scorched earth to prevent what they thought would happen.

The question becomes, why should people trust or believe the new science any more than the old? What if that’s also greatly exaggerated?

Sometimes I wish science were treated more like the fallible concept it is, rather than a religion whose followers can be more fervent than even the most fundamentalist of [insert religion here]