The fact that you think GW places us at imminent risk of starvation suggests you're probably not operating on a coherent model of GW risks. Are you willing to

The fact that you think GW places us at imminent risk of starvation suggests you're probably not operating on a coherent model of GW risks. Are you willing to put money on the table? Make me a market about a measurable GW-related food production loss and I'll probably take you up on it, assuming you're willing to commit to it.