Earth's recent climate spiral.

[The Grand Nudger]

In that it is not, in fact, a fact - and in that even if it were, marginal agricultural gains will not and literally cannot offset the damage, nor would it be acceptable to trade those gains for the attendant risks.

You misunderstand our predicament. We will be paying. It's not elective. We are already paying.

The picture that the possibility paints is one in which, if we make crucial investments now, we..at least...won't suffer the worst outcomes - but this is a cold and meaningless comfort, as we're already perfectly capable of feeding ourselves. You think we're dealing with "this will be great for us" - in mere reality, it's "at least we won't starve first". IDK about you, but I expect a bit more, at least aspirationally, from the american government and people. It may be that we can't hold back the tide, but that shouldn't be our working assumption. I certainly don't think that delusional thoughts and prayers should be any part of any plan we have to deal with the challenges we face. Ideally, we find free market and wildly profitable solutions to our climate issues - and that's been hampered by neo-feudal corporate lobbies going all in on denialism while quietly preparing their own operations all the same. All the way up to the capture of regulatory agencies and exploratory committees. It's the most blatantly cynical and absurd shit I think I've ever seen..and I've seen some pretty crazy shit.

They, at least, have a compelling interest in flogging this nonsense. For you, and for literally anyone who isn't on that payroll, it's just silly. An argument in favor of your own destruction. What's next, you gonna apologize to the executioner about the size of your neck?

[The Architect Of Fate]

How is a scientific fact that northern countries will benefit from warmer climate meaningless?

Because it isn't going to happen.

 And not paying $60 trillion for something America didn't cause is a very practical consideration for American taxpayers

No one is asking America to pay 60 Trillion and yes they did help cause it everyone did and everyone should help within there to do so and there is practical about not doing so. The word you are looking for is insane ....

[Leonardo17]

Appeal to common sense is a code for appeal to most discreditable part of human nature.    Otherwise one would not need to disguise what exactly one is appealing to.

We are discussing ethics not logic. 3rd world countries cause most environmental harm and should pay fot it.

Not True

[Leonardo17]

  Poor countries should make fewer Children while industrialized nation are assisting them to make their transition to clean energy sources

Poor countries should have lower fertility rate and American taxpayers don't owe them anything.

absolutely. Still poorer nations don’t have high fertility rates because they want to. It’s because women have less control over their own bodies and we can correct this by giving more freedom and independence to women in third world countries.

[Leonardo17]

23 rich, developed countries are responsible for half of all historical CO2 emissions. More than 150 countries are responsible for the other half.

I've already explained that future cumulative CO2 emissions would overwhelmingly come from poor countries since their emissions are growing while US emissions are falling.
 

The contribution of developing countries to global emission is 63% and not 76%.

https://www.cgdev.org/media/developing-c...-emissions

Russia is a low income developing country. Your source is wrong.

+ You are the main consumer of their products.

They are the main consumer of their products. China's international trade is responsible for only 13% of their total emissions.

They don’t have cars

China has largest auto market in the world

1) No. India + China are already making efforts for their own energy transition. But there must be ways for such countries to longer invest in coal energy plants but even more wind and solar instead (+nuclear of course).
 
2) Russia has deindustrialized since 1991 that’s why it’s one of the few countries who are able to meet the pledges made in the 2020 Paris climate summit.
 
3) But the Chinese are mostly poor people. They don’t consume a lot as individuals. (same applies to Indians)
 
4) Ordinary Chinese people are not that rich. There is an emerging high + middle class in China but the great majority of them are poor people working for low wages. + child labor still exists in China.
 
   This doesn’t mean that they are not dangerous. The Chinese Communist Party truly aims to turn all of the west into its economic vassal. But as I said, the cause of their industrialization is mainly cheap labor + cheap costs for companies who are willing to invest in China  

[Leonardo17]

Sahara and other deserts will become green due to warmer climate.





Great video!

Or: We are all going to die – all of us – because of climate change  

[Leonardo17]

As others have pointed out - if it's going to be great, then perhaps we should be paying the third world.

I'm not saying that it will be great just far less dangerous than climate alarmists claim.

The fact is: We don’t really know.
 
But still: we are causing changes to happen within 100 year than normally occur within 10000 years.
 
+ we have models. We won’t be able to live in this planet at +4C and we will have many difficulties at +2C. We are already having important issues at +1.1 C.
 
So again: You’re just playing with your own life. Even a colony on Mars may not be enough to save you at +2C. And there is no planet B.  

[Leonardo17]

Global food production will be disrupted

CO2 is a fertilizer and plants benefit from warmer wetter climate.

the backdrop to this will be more frequent and more intense weather events.

Wikipedia says that high hurricane frequency is caused by cleaner air.

Now, IDK what nuts you listen to, but if you're listening to one set of nuts saying it will be the end of the world

In my experience almost all climate alarmists claim that it will be the end of the world.

None of us do that. But many / many people may die because of climate change. + The political / economic order of the world may be disrupted because of climate change.  + we are not able to predict the conditions of a +4C world. It is also possible that life on earth decides to go on on its path without the Homo-Sapiens.
 
Seriously. Where are you going to live? On the ISS maybe?
 
How will your life on a planet of 10 Billion without proper food production? We don’t even know what’s going to happen. So there is no “alarmism”. It’s just that we don’t have another planet to live in. So where do we live if this planet is gone?

[Leonardo17]

You can link whatever you want, but you're still profoundly wrong.  Is that a problem?

I don't think he's simply wrong I think he's willfully ignorant.

That’s the pandemic of our generation. Not the risk of nuclear apocalypse, Not world wars in which everyone is involved. But facebook-Twitter based belief systems against which we are completely helpless.

[Leonardo17]

 I think he peddle these things knowing full well their harmful effect for most of mankind.  

I've never said that most countries won't suffer. I only claim that the Global North will likely benefit from global warming.

He does it out of sheer malevolence and pathological malice towards most of mankind.

    
There is nothing malevolent about pointing out that poor countries are the main perpetrators of global warming and should pay their fair share to stop it.

No. Even if this was true, how do you deal with the flow of climate refugees?
 
+ There have been wild fires + heat records in Europe in the last 10 years. People are unable to ski in the alps. So again this is something that was picked up from science magazines from the 90’s. Climate change isn’t working for anyone. It’s serious stuff. So go away.