No, please, just don't, god, this is even worse!

Providing the wrong arguments for the right conclusion DOES NOT HELP AT ALL

At best you'll only invoke the "it can be warmer randomly, that's fine, climate or just a hot year", which is the truth, at worst you're giving Juan a reason to deny an overwhelmingly large body of evidence.

When leaving the doors open my father used to say "we're not heating the outside air", even as an 8 year old I thought that if all houses collectively attempted to heat the outside air it was bound to work. I had a pretty hard time imagining where all the heat must go. It turns out that cities are actually ~3 degrees (celcius ofc!) warmer because the air is heated (and slowed bc of buildings). It also turns out we lose insanely huge amounts of energy to space, yet do not cool down because the sun blasts in really about as much. So 8 year old me was right in his curiosity, but ultimately his hope that heating the outside air would work was a little ignorant of the science facts.

I thought I could at least amuse you guys with an anacdote, given we're spewing irrelevant evidence. 

If you really care: http://www.unep.org/climatechange/ or more specifically http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/index.shtml

Let me know once you've independently (in)validated the results presented by the ~1500 people who's job it is to know. While you're doing that, I'm just going to continue acknowledging that it's happening and not doing anything about it because it's game theory and China/Russia are never going to vouch for anything that hurts their bottom line more than it does America's, given they will have hardly any trouble at all with climate change. Hell, Russia might become a nice place to visit and China might have some use for its desert highlands. Burn on, comrades!

Note that the solution is trivial! We have ("share") a certain amount of destroyable earth, we can only spew so much of this and that over a certain time period. At the scale at which it matters, global pollution at the global level (UN), local polution at the local level (provincially or nationally), the amount of destroyable earth should be estimated* and auctioned. Sounds atrivial? That's because everyone's fucking incompetent and/or corrupt and/or simply doesn't actually care. If they did, they would have implemented this system for more-dangerous chemicals than greenhouse gasses, in a UN that was created not to deal with issues of war but instead with the issue of improving humanity as a whole, at or about 1900. Or earlier or later, for all I care.

Now your best bet, if you're worried, is to:

0) Be wealthy

1) Live on ground >5 meters above sealevel. More is preferable (storms, etc).

2) Live somewhere a few degrees underneath your preferred temperature.

3) Have solar panels

I don't think growing your own food is worth the bother, all of us on the mailing lists are in pretty wealthy nations. I think we'll turn savage and abuse the shit out of Africa and most of Asia before we go hungry. Not what I'd like to see, I'd prefer them growing wealthy from getting their crops bought, but who am I kidding? Surely, with all the anarchists here, we'd just abandon our systems of law as soon as it becomes profitable, right? Little doublethink and it won't even bother you at night. The solar panels are just there to ensure you can continue using your computer, and possibly sell electricity once the prices skyrocket because nobody would want to ruin the environment anymore. Being wealthy is 0, because it seems like that's always a good idea.

(Sorry about the angry tone, I found out my roof is excellent at propagating sounds from above it. Hardly any distortion! Please play music before 1 in the afternoon when I wake up. I won't complain, because playing music after ~10 AM is totally socially acceptable. Thanks! I think I'll ask them politely and calmly once I can convincingly pretend to be. To be human ♫~~)

* through a combination of politicians indicating the tolerable environmental effects and scientists estimating the amount of specific contaminants releasable at a certain scale to stay within those tolerable environmental effects. Corruption tolerance is no different from other governmental tasks, so let's not pretend this one specifically is a greater risk, please?