Otherwise, Global Warming is obviously true

I enjoy watching agendas crash into reality.  Now I'm the first to admit that climate change is real.  What's to deny?  It's  been documented time and again throughout history.  We know that significant and sometimes radical changes in the climate have altered the course of history.  I'll go further and say that our current dilemma has not been aided by humanity's weak use of industrial and scientific knowledge and progress.  Dating back to the industrial revolution, and going all the way to our modern trend of hooking life up to a processor and wondering where the humanity has gone, I think it's fair to say that we're still bumbling about in the dark when it comes to handling the awesome power that our knowledge of the universe has unleashed.  Which is why, if you'll forgive me, I'm a little skeptical when it comes to those who say it's time to toss all that silly philosophy, theology, and ethics mumbo-jumbo and let science have a blank check. 

But with that said, it's also near imposable to miss the fact that the issue of Global Warming, or Climate Change, has been badly exploited, manipulated, and simplified.  Too soon did scientists jump on the modern trend of 'we're all going to die!' and attempt to scare us through vague and over-hyped conclusions.  If we don't make radical changes, in ten years our coastlines will be gone!  That was from the late 1990s, when I moved to Louisville, Kentucky.  It's been 10 years.  GW advocates bemoan a lack of radical changes.  And the coastlines are still there, as evidenced in our recent trip across the Eastern US Coastline:

The boys scientifically demonstrating the existence of a coastline that looks like it did on our honeymoon in 93

Plus, the single 'it's getting hotter every day' that seemed so true in the early 00s, and certainly seems true this last year, didn't seem so true there for a few years.  It also doesn't seem true in every part of the world.  That's what this article shows. 

Some glaciers are, apparently, growing.  What does that and all the other discrepancies prove?  That the hysteria may be overplayed?  That scientists could be wrong?  That the narrative might need altering?  No.  That cannot be.  So we have scientists saying, in a nut shell, that all the evidence proves we're right, except for that over there, which needs to be understood in this way, since otherwise it might suggest we're not right.  Call me simple, but when I get the hunch that type of reasoning is being used, it gives me reason to hesitate before submitting myself to the latest proclamation that we're doomed.