Given that IPCC estimates of lowering of global temperature by 2100 as a consequence of almost any level of lowering of emissions now ('doing something in polit

Given that IPCC estimates of lowering of global temperature by 2100 as a consequence of almost any level of lowering of emissions now ('doing something in political terms'), are in expressed in terms of small fractions of one degree, it would seem that the worlds you describe would be indistinguishable other than by instrumentation. As it is, most of us experience temperature shifts of up to 20 degrees in our environment on a daily basis. "If radiative forcing were to be stabilised in 2100 at B1 or A1B levels[14] a further increase in global average temperature of about 0.5°C would still be expected, mostly by 2200. {10.7}" https://archive.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/spmsspm-projections-of.html https://archive.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/spm... While extreme weather events are often claimed to be caused by global warming, none have been substantiated - as yet. When and if, then you have a point. If there's a GC model shown to retrospectively predict global weather as observed we should pay attention. To date they do not do this. Factoring in cloud cover is a major difficulty. Given that many more people die from cold than from heat, a profound moral problem arises with the impact of taxes on energy use. Politicians supporting limitations on availability of energy, must be clear that they believe that lots of poor people dying in misery is a price worth paying. Perhaps it is; perhaps it isn't. We should understand clearly that extinction-rebellion-minded people evidently believe it is.