No, you are wrong. Your opinion, given that it is factually incorrect, is irrelevant. Science is not about opinions, it is about facts. When 97% of scientists agree on something, and have a variety of peer reviewed papers and empirical evidence we can accept it as fact and we can rightfully ignore those who have a different "opinion". As an example, there are a large proportion of creationist Christians who believe that the earth is only 6,000 - 10,000 years old, including some "scientists". However, the overwhelming body of scientific evidence and scientific consensus points to it being circa 4.6 billion years old. Therefore we disregard the opinion of the small minority. See how it works. The BBC and other news outlets don't use phrases like "the possible climate crisis" or "the alleged climate crisis" or even "the climate issue" because it would be the same as them saying something akin to the "alleged evolution of man" or the "possible earth being round" or even the "flat earth issue".
"NASA has been accused of adjusting the raw data" What you mean is that Scientists at NASA—as well as other groups—constantly work to ensure that the data being used to estimate global average temperatures are as accurate as possible. As time goes on, updates can lead to small changes to estimates for previous years. These changes, however, are much too small to cause the warming trend that is clear in all available datasets. The most significant adjustments to data relate to changing ship-based instruments and methods used to measure sea surface temperatures around the time of World War II. As the use of thermometers in buckets of water hauled up on deck was replaced by thermometers in ship engine water intake pipes, the measured temperatures changed slightly, necessitating a correction to ensure an “apples-to-apples” comparison. Climate change deniers, like the major oil companies and their political lickspittles jump on this to discredit the evidence behind climate change. Datasets operated by NOAA in the US, the UK Met Office, and others match and support NASA’s results. Scientific consensus.
You do not contest global warming, or that glaciers are melting. Fine. You contest that a 61cm rise will not produce mass migration. The IPCC report that you mention, which was put together by more than 100 scientists from over 80 countries, examines the state of climate change science on the oceans. You reference sea levels rising by only 61cm as the worst case. Actually the worst case in the IPCC report is 61cm - 100cm. The rise could be “substantially higher” upto 2m if Antarctic ice disappears faster. So your worst case is actually, the best of the worst case scenarios.
In terms of its impact, there are estimated to be 680 million people living in low lying coastal areas. This is expected to rise to 1 billion by 2050. So, whilst the mass migrations "won't be on the scale i suggest", it's alright because it will only affect up to 680 million people. Currently there are 65 million refugees globally, climate change has the potential to increase that ten fold and more. The western world is already up in arms about refugees "coming over here" how do you think they will react with ten times the number of people.
In addition to this we have:
Mass extinction of species. Although extinction is a natural phenomenon, it occurs at a natural “background” rate of about one to five species per year. Scientists estimate we're now losing species at up to 1,000 times the background rate, with literally dozens going extinct every day.
Plastic pollution. It is estimated that 1.1 to 8.8 million metric tons (MT) of plastic waste enters the ocean from coastal communities each year.
Deforestation. The Earth loses 18.7 million acres of forests per year, which is equal to 27 football fields every minute.
Be in no doubt, we are in the middle of an environmental crisis, you can choose to ignore it but you are in the same boat as flat earthers and creationsists. This isn't about creating new taxes, and making people poorer, it is really not. This is about recognising that we are using up the resources on this earth too quickly than they can be replenished and we need to change our lifestyles.
