[bpodgursky]

> we know it won’t do anything good

This kind of absolute confidence about an extremely unpredictable change in an extremely dynamic and complicated system is not remotely scientific. We can predict (reasonably) that the changes will be overall worse, but it would IMO be pretty shocking if there were _no_ positive effects:

- Growing seasons are longer in near-arctic regions - Higher CO2 means plants photosynthesize easier, requiring less water in desert regions - The arctic passage means shorter cargo vessel trips

This doesn't balance out the overall crisis, but there are going to be a lot of changes both directions.

[spidersouris]

I'm trying hard, but I absolutely cannot fathom how these "positive effects" can outbalance even 1% of the disastrous consequences of climate change. We (i.e. mostly undeveloped countries) are about to experience decades of extreme hunger, deadly hotness and critical environmental events (tornadoes, floods...). That the Arctic ice floe melts won't bring any positive consequence except for the fact that it will increase trades and shipping with cargoes and will thus lead to more emissions. The same goes for plants: many species will not survive to the environmental changes so CO2 will stay roughly the same. And it goes without saying that it's far from being the only metrics at play there.

[seph-reed]

Ah. You're a humanist. I can't argue your religion here, but some people don't think humans own the planet, or that everything revolves around us.

[spidersouris]

If assessing the consequences of climate change from the point of view of a human (which everybody should do) seems to make you think that I am a humanist, then yes, I am. Climate change won't destroy the planet. Climate change won't destroy every single species living on it. But climate change will destroy us. We're taking actions against climate change to save humans, not to save animals or the flora. Pretending the contrary is hypocritical.