The (already-dead, so I can't reply directly to it) response from 'prometheus76 is telling here, so I think it's worth preserving to expose the fakeness of this

The (already-dead, so I can't reply directly to it) response from 'prometheus76 is telling here, so I think it's worth preserving to expose the fakeness of this whole "what if the costs are higher than the benefits" posturing: "But I thought humans were not adaptable to climate change? Isn't that the panic?" After all that hand-wringing about "destroying the world economy" you'd think that "adapting to climate change" would not be the bar for them. "Adapting without economic harm" would be. Even if you frame it purely economically and don't care about lives lost, the economic cost of things like rising temperatures and sea levels is easily calculable as being enormous. That precious petro-heavy global economy depends massively on infrastructure on today's coast, for starters. This is just "I disagree with making any efforts entirely but I've given up on being able to convince people that the efforts aren't needed, so I'll just try to claim they're too expensive instead by arguing against a worst-faith interpretation of what we could possibly try to do."