Wanting to avoid death, disease, and destruction is not the same as a general fear of change.
The current stress right now is to stop climate control. We humans believe we can stop climate control, but what if we can't? What if it actually is due to sun spots and beyond our control? It seems like it would make sense to adapt to the change rather than try to stop the change.
Also, global warming will cause death, disease, and destruction. This is clear from only one of it's effects, sea level rise.
"I read the post you are replying to as a jab at those who believe change leads to death and destruction."
What I was saying is that global warming will lead to death and destruction.
"We could move the cities inland. "
I love how people say this like it's no biggie. Let's hire some contractors and bam, city moved. LOL. I'm guessing it's a lot easier to reduce are use of fossil fuels than it is to move a few major cities. what do you think?
I personally think it's a better idea to avoid serious problems than to accept the enormous pain that will come with ideas like "hey, change is normal".
"But even if solar forcing in the past was more important than this estimate suggests, as some scientists think, there is no correlation between solar activity and the strong warming during the past 40 years. Claims that this is the case have not stood up to scrutiny (pdf document).
Direct measurements of solar output since 1978 show a steady rise and fall over the 11-year sunspot cycle, but no upwards or downward trend .
Similarly, there is no trend in direct measurements of the Sun's ultraviolet output and in cosmic rays. So for the period for which we have direct, reliable records, the Earth has warmed dramatically even though there has been no corresponding rise in any kind of solar activity."
source: http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11650-climate-myths-gl...