Read the original comment, please: ""We have not, even one time, seen a case where climate change has caused long term economic damage. At the very worst bad weather has caused localized destruction that is, in every single case, completely recovered within a decade. "
Not "CO2-related climate change," or "Man-made climate change." Just climate change. And furthermore, a follow-up accusation that the worst-case scenario is "bad weather causing localized destruction... completely recovered within a decade."
No. That's not true. And *that's* what I refuted, with a handful from dozens of examples.
We could argue whether the drought that killed 10 million Benghalis counts as bad weather or climate change, but it certainly caused a catastrophic scenario that did NOT recover within 10 years. My larger point is that bad weather and climate change can have long-lasting effects and have done so for all of recorded history. The Irish Potato Famine may not be directly linked (I likely shouldn't have included it), but millions of Irish immigrated to America as a result. We have an entire population of people today who would not be here if not for a famine and subsequent upheaval.
Saying things "recovered within a decade" obscures the very real damage and millions of lives lost that many of these events caused.
With all the fancy scientists in the world, why can't they just once build a nuclear balm?