Just a quick comment: it is not only the extremes that will change with a changing climate, it is also the mean state of the climate (such as the global mean temperature, regional means, etc.). This is actually what "climate change" mostly refers to (or at least has referred to in the past). The implications may be different depending on what one adopts as "consequences of climate change".

Climate change means a shift of both, mean state and extremes (or variability in general). This can entail such phenomena as shift of climate zones, etc., with consequences for water supply, crops, spread of diseases and pests and so on.

I think one could argue that the most challenging aspect may be the relatively rapid rate of change requiring rapid responses to mitigate and adapt.

Thanks a lot Gerd for the brilliant response. However, as a follow up, I humbly would like to know if the global concern and negative perceptions attached to the phenomenon is primarily due to impacts on physical, human and ecological systems arising from dymanics in the means of the climate variables/indicators or rather to the extremes and their corresponding implications being observed.

Actually David, I would say it is the mean change that is our greatest concern. Climate variables are constantly fluctuating and can be incredibly variable in terms of their extremes (partly the argument of climate change sceptics). So while the frequency of occurrence of the extremes of climatic events may increase locally (droughts, storms, flooding, etc.), it is the global MEAN change that will drive this increased frequency and ultimately have the greatest impact on sea temperature, ice melt, etc.

oh ok, thanks a lot John for the clarification....Your point is well noted and very much appreciated

Thanks a lot Aurelie for the brilliant opinion shared. Your point is well noted and very much appreciated

Thanks a lot Mohammed for the wonderful response and example given, Your point is well noted and very much appreciated

Am glad to know that Mohammed, thanks

Well, I would argue the other way round and see climate change as an opportunity rather for organisations to demonstrate their competitive advantage. Some organisations have embarked on various initiatives either through better product development and synergies with other organisations to reduce their carbon footprint. They are leveraging on the need to mitigate climate change as a catalyst for better innovation.

As well, a new sector in clean energy has emerged as a result of climate change concerns.

Oh ok, interesting...Thanks a lot Renard for the wonderful opinion shared

The answer surely depends on where you are... and related to a previous question- Earth's orbital configuration has been on a cooling trend for 8,000 years with changing obliquity (axial tilt). If you live in a country that has the resources to first cope and then adapt to changing climate, and one that is located at temperate latitudes where the impact will be less (i.e. much of the developed world) then climate change is a problem but not a disaster. For the rest of the world that lacks those resources even small changes in climate can be catastrophic. London can build flood barriers to protect all its money and population. Farmers on the Nile Delta, in Bangladesh or the Sahel do not have the necessary resources to hand. This is why climate change is as much a socioeconomic and ethical issue as it is a scientific issue.

Thanks a lot David for the wonderful point made. Your opinion is well noted and very much appreciated

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/ef56/87859fc1b5d8c85997e4c142ad8a1c345451.pdf