> So there are all sorts of reasons not to just take anything by these organisations even if you agree that there is a problem and that the climate is changing.

> So there are all sorts of reasons not to just take anything by these organisations even if you agree that there is a problem and that the climate is changing. In other words you don't have to become a climate catastrophist just because you agree that climate is always going to be challenge to humans. Nevertheless, these climate claims are consistent with what I know to be true: that ecologies collapse when there is a great change in temperature (even when geology is similar), that carbon is a greenhouse gas, that we are emitting it at an unprecedented scale, and that carbon in the biosphere is conserved. I haven't seen a compelling model that assumes otherwise that does not predict the existence of a system that we haven't yet observed. One has to make a risk-cost decision either way on imperfect information, and I think the more consistent and conservative theory and its associated greater costs is the more optimal decision. > Old theories don't still hold > They are still useful in limated scope On the other hand, it is usually more likely that phenomena predicted after a paradigm shift have more limited application, due to the principle that more inaccessible phenomena are more difficult to exploit. Even with the paradigm shift, it only gives us more accurate predictions about phenomena that we already have, agreeing with it to a large degree in most human-experience aspects. Consider that quantum mechanics see less application than newtonian mechanics. The old theory still holds in most situations indeed, whereas quantum theory requires an intractable amount of computation to obtain predictions. Quantum chemistry see less application than traditional models of chemistry. Similarly, any new findings on climate change solutions are very likely to be tougher to exploit than current solutions. So I do not think it is rational to wait for a technological hail mary. > you have to live by that framing then it all falls apart. You have hundreds of millions of people if not billions who would do anything to become just a fraction as rich as you and me and do not care one ounce about their climate footprint and what you consider immoral I think I have given sufficient examples that disagree with what you are saying. With respect to less prosperous communities, it is often the case that they have a more collectivistic mindset and community and in fact live under more taboos. Consider superstitions, rituals, and religious dietary restrictions. Also consider the case of British society a couple centuries ago, where the aspirational class lived more prudishly than the upper class or the lower class, based on a certain idealistic gentility. > That's actually not even close to true which China is a pretty clear example of. I don't know which aspect of the Chinese economy you are referring to. The electronics part, where there is no lack of signal from the countries it exports to, or its investment in green tech, in which case we may consider the Govt. one disproportionately strong actor in collective signalling.