Your 'understanding' is rear-view-mirror/past-performance logic and the whole point of "the science" [1] is to communicate that that WILL NOT HOLD. A 3.5C worl

Your 'understanding' is rear-view-mirror/past-performance logic and the whole point of "the science" [1] is to communicate that that WILL NOT HOLD. A 3.5C world is one in which large portions of the tropics (central america, northern africa, the middle east, india and large parts of china) will simply be depopulated. They can leave as refugees or stay as bodies. At 2.5C thats still largely true but say its only half the populations. Nobody is "better off" living through the droughts, famines, and conflicts that lead to that level of depopulation. Essentially at 3C and above we're doing an irish-famine/holodomor to somewhere between an eighth and a quarter of humanity. To imply they might be 'better off' for it is so grotesque I'll assume you're not a monster and simply don't grasp the 1.5<->3.5C consequence ranges and timeline. [1] just as one example here's the 'multi sector risk' indexed by (poor) population: https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/sites/2/2018/11/Figure_3.18.jpg https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/sites/2/2018/11/Figu... Those are the people who are being hit the hardest. Many more good graphs in that report: https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/graphics/ https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/graphics/ Probably most important of all is to really deeply memorize that first one to understand the most important variable in the whole conversation: TIME