[yongjik]

The way I understand it, the "uncertainty" about global warming as of 2024 is the same kind of uncertainty as whether an alcoholic with liver cancer can live three or six more months if he continues ignoring his doctor's advice.

I'm open to discussions about different approaches and their relative merits, but we're beyond the point where "we don't know how bad it will get" is a valid argument for anything.

[brutusborn]

If you don’t know how bad it will get, how can you balance the negatives of remediation?

For example, if the world was ending next year it might make sense to turn off all fossil fuels and eradicate most of the human population. But if it is only a few degrees per century we can consider… better options.

[yongjik]

Holy strawman, who said anything about eradicating most of humans?

Let me rephrase: realistically speaking, the things humanity will manage to do in the next 10 years will be such a lukewarm attempt that the chance we will "accidentally" overshoot and create more misery is close to zero.

[brutusborn]

Again, If you don’t know how bad it will get, how can you balance the negatives of remediation?

We already created misery via starvation due to biomass subsidies, what makes you think our future policies will be harmless?

Of course my example was absurd, but it illustrates the trade offs involved.