Here is a look at the projected positives and negatives fully equipped with links to the corresponding scientific papers. If after going through these you still think it is exaggerated, then I guess that's just your opinion.
[skepticalscience.com]

The hell it is. All of the worst case scenario ramifications have come true. I remember reading that we were likely to experience more frequent and intense weather phenomenon 15 years ago. Now we're living with nasty storms every year that have devastated Texas,Puerto Rico, and the Caribbean. Places that were already hot have become nearly unlivable and it's just going to get worse (118 in arizona last year) and desertification is already beginning to creep through many parts of the globe.

I will leave it to Al Gore to prove my point:

Could you please source this or tell us of your own research because I insist on evidence based research which is why I am not religious. If 97% of scientists believe in climate change....thats good enough for me. BTW it is NOT global warming but Climate Change. If you don't believe in empirical evidence I have to wonder why you choose to be an atheist.

"We do know that Co2 is not a problem because the Earth is currently Co2-starved by historical standards."
Wrong:
[esrl.noaa.gov]
"Normal is about three times current levels, and we had 12 to 16 times current levels during the Cambrian Explosion with only positive effects."
Ecosystems rely an a stable climate. If the climate changes in such a fast rate this will NOT have positive effects.
"...there is no evidence that humans are responsible."
Have you even done the most basic research? This is not a controversial issue among scientists. The temperature is rising. Humans are responsible. We SHOULD do something about it.

@Dietl, I SAID that I was talking about 100s of millions of years and you responded with data on the last 150 years. Here's the timescale that I was talking about:

[infiniteunknown.net]

Yes, you can pick a timescale to show anything that you want to see, as Co2 levels go up and down. However, NOAA is clearly faking their data (they're known for that, google "hockey stick global warming" ), as the Lake Vostok Ice Core data clearly shows levels going up and down as the climate repeatedly changed over a more moderate time period:

[collective-evolution.com]

The Ice Core data shows a clear 110,000-year cycle of warming and cooling. We are currently near the end of a 10,000-year warm period and can expect another ice age in the next 1000 years or so, assuming that historical patterns hold.

Climate change over 100 million years is NOT fast. Or do you not care about timescales?

I've done a lot more than the simplistic parroting of popular myths that you're doing. Yes, the temperature is rising. But you left out how they separate natural warming from anthropogenic warming. How exactly do they do this? Or do they just blame mankind for everything that happens, as if nothing could ever change without us?

We can't even reliably change the weather over a local area, much less control the climate of the whole planet. You're living in a dream world.

@Idheinz
-You said the rise in CO2 was normal, which is just plain wrong. The timescale matters and a rise by 100 ppm in 100 years is not normal. We push tons and tons of CO2 into the atmosphere and then we measure a rise of CO2 in the atmosphere. What is there so hard to understand?
-If you think NOAA is faking their data, provide me with better data.

• Your own link shows that over the last 400 000 years the CO2 level was between 200 and 300 ppm. And now it climbed over 400 in 100(!) years.
• Of course natural warming is also a factor, but tell me which natural factor produces such a rapid increase in CO2? Show me your data.
• Go to this site:
  [skepticalscience.com]
  Every argument that you ever read in your misleading articles has been debunked a hundered times. This site provides scientific studies to back it all up.
  The article you linked is riddled with things that have been debunked:
  The climate should lag behind 800 years:
  [skepticalscience.com]
  The CO2 increase has only a small effect:
  [skepticalscience.com]
  and on and on and on...
  The thing you have to ask yourself is why do you feel the need to believe it's all a hoax when the evidence is so overwhelming. I would understand if it was a issue and you only read some onesided articles. But here we have multiple fields of research all pointing to the same conclusion, yet you deny it. What a freethinker you are!

@MsDemeanour, I insist on evidence myself, which is how I got to my current position on this subject. I kept hearing "You mustn't question, you must simply believe" in global warming, which sounded suspiciously similar to what religious people say, which made me insist on evidence. And the global warming people refused to provide it, or more often provided data like Dietl just did, which shows warming, but doesn't show WHY it warmed. There's no cause and effect here, just "there's warming, therefore humans caused it", which does NOT automatically follow.

Now on the ever-popular 97% number, are you aware that it's a fraud? They included many non-scientists when doing that "study". Later properly done studies show that it's more like 60%. And besides, the truth is not determined by popular vote. 100 years ago 97% of physicists thought that relativity was bunk. It wasn't until it was proven to be true that opinions changed. Also, I've encountered the same argument when saying that Jesus is a myth, made up after the fact. Apologists insist that 97% of Biblical scholars say that he was real. But 97% of Biblical scholars are Xtians, and know that their paychecks depend on coming up with the "right" conclusion. Try getting funding for a study proving that global warming is false. There isn't any unless you want to be a shill of the Evangelicals.

As for "Global Warming" versus "Climate Change", I refuse to play the politically correct game. I lived through the population bomb panic of the 60s, the global cooling panic of the 70s, the ozone hole panic of the 80s, and the global warming panic of the 90s to the present. Global warming is just the latest hoax used to get people to part with their money, and it's been so successful that it's spawned a trillion dollar industry.

@Idheinz:
On multiple occasions you showed that you couldn't even understand what I said in my comments to you. You just misinterpreted more than once what I said. Maybe that is just my fault, but I think you have serious problems with reading comprehension and to me it is no wonder that you are not able to understand the scientific on climate change.
The links I gave you do NOT only show that there is warming and I even told you. I think I'm done here. You showed very well that you don't know what you are talking about and let your biases dictate your views.

@ldheinz I have a lovely piece of waterfront land going cheap I could sell you

@MsDemeanour, please keep in mind that YOU'RE the one who's blindly trusting others, while I'M the one who's the skeptic demanding proof. Also, you're the one making the claim, so the burden of proof is on you.

When I heard Al Gore say that global warming was "Settled Science" alarm bells went off in my head, as that's not the way science works. In science, you can always question anything, but you need evidence to back up your claim. Besides, to what "damage" are you referring? There's no indication that any current global warming isn't completely natural in origin, and there's no indication that we can or should do anything about it, other than gradually move away from the coasts, which is a good idea regardless.

@ldheinz I believe there is a weight of evidence that indicates that we are contributing to global warming.

@Marionville, care to part with it? How about how they separate natural from artificial global warming?

Or are you just parroting what you've been trained to say?

Besides, believing something is worthless. It's what you can prove that matters.

@ldheinz. I said CONTRIBUTING to not entirely due to. I won’t be patronised by you or anyone else and have never parroted anything in my life but read everything and conclude nothing until I have evidence. You know nothing about me to think that anyone could train me to say anything, that is a ludicrous suggestion. I am a lifelong freethinker and everything I say and do comes from study, thought and conviction.