Even if AGW is tangible, predicting what will happen to CO2 in the next century is a rather uncertain matter. We’re already used to it. Our CO2 projections assume more fossil fuels consumed than exist on our planet today. Observation-based studies indicate a lower sensitivity, which means we’d have more time to prepare. The impact of AGW is also rather uncertain; silly mitigation policies may lead to suboptimal results. AGW is rather good, a net benefit in the short run. After all, all life is carbon-based, CO2 is not a pollutant and more CO2 will benefit the world. Economic models tell us very little: ad hoc input choices, void of theorical foundation, may contain Gremlins. Saying that AGW is “bad” or “alarming” leads us outside science, for science is value-neutral. Beware stealth issue advocacy. The issue is what shows up in summaries and press releases: it’s not science, but it’s important. We need to reframe AGW as a wicked problem. Meanwhile, cool it and don’t panic.