> It's incredibly naive to assume we will land in some nice stable equilibrium where it's a couple of degrees warmer globally. I don't assume that, nor did I w

> It's incredibly naive to assume we will land in some nice stable equilibrium where it's a couple of degrees warmer globally. I don't assume that, nor did I write it. A mass extinction event would have high costs; it's entirely possible, though, that preventing one would have higher costs still (after all, it's not beyond belief that even if the Earth returned to the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum, mankind could survive). All I wrote is that we need to consider costs as well as benefits of any scenario, to include doing nothing, and that I currently have relatively little faith in those who are confident in their estimates of costs and benefits. It's a bit surprising that either of these is so controversial.