And, of course, there's the threat to animals:
The trend poses the greatest threat to areas of rich, but threatened, animal and plant life, in regions such as the Himalayas, the Philippines and African and South American mountain ranges. The changes could threaten some species with extinction and also displace or fragment local human populations.
It's the equivalent of Bill Clinton's "It's for the children", in the global warming imbroglio.
Of course, those computer models can't model the past at all. That's one of the curious features about this whole global warming modeling craze: just plug in some assumptions into the various models and you get a wonderful 300-400% variation in the results. A former Vice President's "documentary" about global warming can then fan the flames of fear, uncertainty, and doubt, goading us into doing something, anything to avert the holocaust to come.
But when asked to model the past, things that have actually happened climate-wise in other words, nobody seems interested. Natural variations in climate over the past 1000 years that had nothing to do with man-made causes don't seem to interest these folks at all. It's the glorious prospect of gaining control over the global affairs of all mankind that trips their trigger, while denying developing nations the chance to develop.
Then, of course, mention that atomic power could remove gobs of CO2 from the air and whoa! You're worse than the CO2 polluters, you nuclear nut-job you!
Bah! I have faith that peoples' good sense and resistance to scare-mongering will win out and people like Al Gore and his ilk can fade into well-deserved obscurity.