Re: @ h4rm0ny
Your problem is you are automatically assuming that global warming is a "catastrophic event" and even comparing it to a plane crash which has a much more immediate effect than the slow motion "catastrophe" that is global warming's worst case scenario.
It is more like "if there was a 38% chance that feeding your kid Gerber baby food will have consequences when he's 80, though we can't say for sure whether those consequences will mean an increased cancer risk or some freckles on his knees would you stop feeding your kid Gerber baby food?"
Humanity already lived through a much much much larger warming and much much much larger sea level rise than would occur even if every bit of ice on the planet melted. It happened around 10,000 years ago. Coastal (and not so coastal) settlements were lost to the sea and are now a few hundred feet below today's sea level, and there was flooding fast and severe enough to enter our racial memory and be written down thousands of years later in the Epic of Gilgamesh, Old Testament and so forth.
If that stood to happen today as a result of human influence I'm sure people would fret about the dire consequences for marine life from so much warming, and ignore the potential benefits of not having half of north America covered in an ice sheet two miles thick. Why is warming automatically assumed to be a bad thing in every way, and discussion of potential positive benefits is not allowed? Who says we wouldn't be better off with another degree or two? Yeah, we lose some coastal cities, but it will happen over decades so it isn't like we'll need to evacuate a million people in a week.