Unless, of course, it's not that big.

Economics is a place where global warming predictions are egregiously wrong.

The Stern report in question overestimates future damage from global warming due to overly low time value (of money and other things) by using an artificially low economic growth rate value in place of the actual inflation-adjusted GDP growth (or similar measures of growth of economic value). For example, the cost of harms a century in advance were overstated by a factor of two.

And other costs are notoriously overestimated. A particularly big one is the alleged cost of sea level rise (coupled with alleged increases in storm strength). The typical approach is to look at the land that is predicted to be inundated (which often is highly priced) and value the cost of global warming as the destruction of that property. This ignores that most of that property will need to be replaced well before sea level rise becomes a factor in its destruction. And if you're going to do that, then a move to higher ground is not a significant additional cost.

Well, unless society chooses to make such activities overly expensive. For example, we could greatly reduce the alleged impact of sea level rise by reforming public flood insurance in the US. Not the world, the US. It's amazing how much of the supposed evidence for global warming, such as citing increased insurance claims for flooding and other extreme weather, relies on ignoring the effects of severely broken human systems. Another such example is the conflating of droughts caused by pumping out an aquifer with droughts caused by AGW.

Similar issues are uncovered with claims of loss of arable land. This ignores the increase in arable land coming from most of the heating occurring in the upper temperate zones of the Northern hemisphere.

And heat radiates into space as the fourth power of temperature. There's your global warming negative feedback.

So what? Where's the evidence to back up those reports?

Sure, they can. It's not a big stretch to say that the people who can better ignore the obvious problems are the same ones who better tolerate AC posting.

I see a unmet need for my car sounding like a unlicensed nuclear accelerator. "Switch me on".

Another alternative explanation is that AGW and the harm coming from it exist, but are grossly exaggerated.

Yay, for ISLE. Most standards are pretty lousy when it comes to publicly held debt.

Why is that amazing? The numbers are huge on both sides. And given that we are seeing record profits for the oil companies at the same time that we're seeing this global warming hysteria, it reminds me that profit from each ideological approach is not mutually exclusive!

How big is this comet? We already know Earth gets hit by comets frequently (meaning we're already 100% confident that a comet will crash on Earth). And of course, we're ignoring the unscientific exaggerations of comet impact likelihood and harm which would accompany this prediction.

Where's the analysis of the relative costs and benefits of acting and not acting? Not acting has substantial benefits with respect to dealing with future global warming while acting has both substantial present day harm and not very impressive future benefits even if global warming is as bad as claimed.

This "we have to do something" impulse is also stupid. For example, you will die at some point. But if you kill yourself now, you won't die at any point in the future. It fixes the problem of dying in the future far more completely than any alternative method. Since we have to do something now, killing yourself is the obvious choice for best approach.

The answer is an obvious "yes", but via things like desertification, deforestation, and resource mismanagement not global warming.

I think this is why climate alarmism will ultimately fail. You say things about an AC which are clearly untrue. The AC didn't say those things, you did.

And if we use that graph you linked as our "trend" (ignoring that 1970 is not a good starting point because it's near a local minimum), then we see around 1.5 C heating from 2000 to 2100. That currently is much less than the forecasts are projecting (2 C being a bare minimum and 4 C being the most common prediction).

Who really wants to end the world in Chicago?

It's just like handing over keys to a storage cabinet you own. There's no Fifth Amendment protection here. You aren't being forced to testify against yourself.

The Fourth Amendment protects against unreasonable searches, such as forcing a student to hand over a password to a Facebook account or a key to a storage cabinet without a warrant.

The same can be said of well regulated or well unionized industries.

I see only one reason to elaborate further. We have almost sixteen more years of experience demonstrating the problems with AC posting. I don't consider AC posting terrible enough to ban, but you are ignoring some really obvious problems.

The state governments are not subject to the same rules as the federal government. And the National Guard are elements of the US military that belong to the states.

Because I can't tell any of you apart from the trolls, shills, and other vermin that skitter through these halls. If you have a pseudonym, I can with some pain, search through your previous posts and decide if you're on the level or not. I figure a person who cranks out more than half a dozen similar posts probably isn't faking it, that takes too much work for the usual troll.

But a one-time AC post? There's far less effort involved.

I notice in your link that most of the posts that were highly rated, were posted by people with an account. It's not that hard to set up an account just to post an anonymous message.