1) Is real but will have net positive impact on humanity (of course there will be losers, but like most new technologies humans will have more for less effort)
2) It is real but unlikely to end humanity. Much more likely to create large areas that are unlivable, but a lot of work has gone into avoiding world ending scenarios.
3) Is mostly hype. Doom predictions in the last 20 years on this topic have been very wrong. The climate is always changing, and humans will have to adapt as always (+1 to 2C increase over 100 years is not world ending). The long term problem will be prevented by a) running out of cheap carbon based energy b) geo-engineering c) rise of cheaper non carbon based energy (related to a).
Asteroid impact or pandemic / virus / man-made bioweapon are all higher probability humanity ending risk IMHO. Not enough thought & energy are put into those scenarios.
2) It is real but unlikely to end humanity. Much more likely to create large areas that are unlivable, but a lot of work has gone into avoiding world ending scenarios.
3) Is mostly hype. Doom predictions in the last 20 years on this topic have been very wrong. The climate is always changing, and humans will have to adapt as always (+1 to 2C increase over 100 years is not world ending). The long term problem will be prevented by a) running out of cheap carbon based energy b) geo-engineering c) rise of cheaper non carbon based energy (related to a).
Asteroid impact or pandemic / virus / man-made bioweapon are all higher probability humanity ending risk IMHO. Not enough thought & energy are put into those scenarios.