re: #344 lrsshadow

See now why can’t it just be like that. “hey we may have a problem here, maybe we should take some economical steps to mitigate a potential problem”

But what I am hearing is “hey we have a looming catastrophe for which science has proven irrefutably to be man made and we can fix it but it will cost trillions and kill many people to fix it, but it is much better then the entire world devoid of life”

Again - documentation (I know, I know, documentation is painfully close to science but help us out?):

Cost trillions?
Kill many people?

And who is saying it will be a world devoid of life? We’re talking about changes of several degrees. It would see entire regions made uninhabitable, droughts and floods, etc… but nobody legitimate is saying that global warming will wipe out all life on earth. Stop responding to the boogey-men in your head!

But to your first point - what do you propose we do? What are nice reasonable steps?