I think you successfully got my goat. But a few things to consider: (1) The climate models of the 1970's were actually incredibly accurate, 50 years later. (

I think you successfully got my goat. But a few things to consider: (1) The climate models of the 1970's were actually incredibly accurate, 50 years later. (2) We are pretty close to 2 degrees now (AFAIK we are at 1.6 currently and rising). The current models have us breaching 2 degrees in the next couple decades, if not already breached. (Any reason to believe our current models for the next 20 years are far less accurate than the models of the 1970's for a longer time scale?) (3) We need warming of 2 degrees for up to two centuries to lock in the melting of Greenland's ice sheet. (4) Once we breach 2 degrees, the timer starts. How likely do you think it would be that we would stop emissions to arrest that growth? How difficult would it be to even get back under 2 degrees (to then actually _lower_ the temperature). Hence, unless we want to not only figure out a way to eliminate emissions, but also reverse those effects; we are best staying under 2 degrees. The time threshold for staying under 2 degrees is quickly passing, and that is not a problem for "hundreds of years from now". If you care at all then about your grandchildren having anything resembling the comforts of you; perhaps you would also be concerned about the implications of breaching 2 degrees and how important it is to stop that increase before we even consider how to reverse those effects. Last point, considering it is the 2% [0] are the ones doing most of the emissions, then this concern over the change for a more laborious and less comfortable life for the 98% seems misplaced. [0] It turns out it's actually the top 10~20 percent that do most of the emissions, with more from the smaller fraction. The point is all the same though.