As reported by livescience.com, the "Average surface temperatures rose a total of 1.71 degrees Fahrenheit (0.95 degrees Celsius) between 1880 and 2016." Such an increased has been blamed primarily on the usage of fossil fuels, of which to preclude such continuance of this greenhouse effect, would necessitate as reported by the International Energy Agency, "… will cost $44 trillion between now and 2050," in order to switch from today's fossils fuels to alternative low carbon sources of energy.
This estimate that $44 trillion will be needed in order to avert continued global warming, should not be seen as the clarion warning that we need to dig deep within our pockets and to thereby voluntarily lower our standard of living and our quality of life, but rather should be seen for what it really is, a battle royal between the forces of fossil fuels which have basically ruled the roost since the late 19th century, against all other alternatives that wish to become the new energy kings.
In point of fact, while global warming has its issues and troubles that will effect to some degree: mankind, our land mass, oceans, foods, and just about everything that we relate to, gradual change, is however, something that clearly mankind can and does well adapt to. That is to say, gradual change is not something that will result in the end of the world, but rather will result in mankind using its ingenuity to adjust to meaningful changes that are wrought from such a continual global change.
If mankind wants to really worry about climate change, they should worry instead about natural disasters that could dramatically change climate or create upheaval and havoc, and should be specifically concerned about earthquakes, hurricanes, meteorites, and most especially, catastrophic volcanic eruptions. The fact of the matter is a catastrophic volcanic eruption of epic proportions, would, besides killing and destroying all that would be in its way, would also change the climate, virtually overnight, for a considerable and meaningful part of the world, in addition to wiping out huge swaths of land mass.
For instance, as reported by howstuffworks.com, they state that: "Around 200 million years ago, a super volcano erupted with such insistent energy that 75 percent of the species on the planet were eradicated. It was so gigantic that it pulled apart North America and Africa and created the Atlantic Ocean in between." That is the difference between something to really worry about, and to at least consider spending $44 trillion on to prevent, as opposed to simply just adapting to global warming and any other gradual changes, that mankind is especially adept at.
This earth can be a dangerous place, because catastrophic and unexpected change can happen so suddenly and of such natural violence, that mankind is not able to adapt or to withstand such a change. It is these natural disasters, more than anything, other than mankind's insistence upon constant warfare, that is the challenge that mankind needs to address, if it is even possible to address.
Those that are up in arms about global warming, are surely missing the forest for the trees, for though global warming has its challenges, these challenges are being met and will continue to be met in a competent manner, and further if there are things that can or need to be done that are both cost effective and highly efficient, to help reduce these gradual temperature changes, than that has its place. However, to devote trillions of dollars of mankind's money, simply to have a changing of the guard, of who and what provides our energy, is stupidity of the highest order.
Those that like to worry shouldn't worry about global warming, that's a sideshow, at best, and instead they should worry about catastrophic natural disasters or apocalyptic nuclear war.