[funcDropShadow]

> The CO2 is the problem, not the temperature.

So all the experts who talk about the 2 degree celsius goal did set the goal on the wrong measure? Please be more convincing than just restating your previous hypothesis.

As far as I understand the situation, the increased average temperature is the problem. Not because every day would be exactly n degrees warmer/hotter, but because it leads to way more variance in the atmosphere, i.e. storms, hot and cold extreme wheather etc. The CO2 itself might also induce problems. But they do not dominate the situation.

[ncmncm]

Failing to control CO2 leads inexorably to global collapse of civilization, regardless of temperature.

Civilization would also collapse as a consequence of extreme temperature.

Temperature increase is easier to limit, but redirecting resources to limiting temperature accelerates CO2 increase, thus collapse from that.

Directing resources to reducing CO2 also limits temperature rise.

Each dollar directed to intervention A is a dollar not directed to intervention B.

Extreme fever can kill the patient. Plunging the patient in ice water cuts fever, but fails to save the patient. Antibiotics may take longer to reduce fever, but offers the possibility of saving the patient.

[funcDropShadow]

But betting everything on one horse, company, or intervention is rarely a good strategy. I think Nicolas Nassim Taleb makes compelling arguments in his books, starting from the Black Swan.

[ncmncm]

Money is fungible. Money spent on a non-solution is money not spent on a solution.