These are non sequiturs. There is evidence in climatology. And economics is a science, should we choose to treat it as such.

I think there's a better chance of a good outcome waiting on a demonstration of the supposed dire nature of global warming. Keep in mind that there's plenty of evidence indicating that the effects of global warming are long in coming, slow to occur, and moderate in effect. It is near trivial for a human civilization to adapt under those circumstances. I don't see the compelling reason to act that a significant, likely asteroid impact would have.

Sure, it is, if they're willing to go through the effort. I don't buy at all the claim that one can't improve their circumstances. I can buy that they aren't sufficient interested in improving their circumstances to go through the effort.

That's moderately unconventional, actually. I doubt most IT people still work in IT. It's a tough field with tough work conditions which is not for most people.

Look at that. Seven categories of choices right there. You already figured it out.

The "right work"? That sounds pretty naive to me right there. My view is merely that you can shop for a better job or merely a different job. Even if you're looking for a characteristic which can't completely go away (such as absence of stress or doing work as you feel like doing it), you still can look for work that is more suited to your desires.

Finally, my observation is based on the bald fact that the developed world, despite the problems it has created for employers, is still a pretty open market for workers. If your current job sucks a lot, you have ready means to look for better work.

So what? I tire of this fake helplessness. Sure, it matters to them how things seem. Sure, it matters that there are negative consequences to be overcome. But how much more of our societies can we afford to sacrifice to people who choose not to better their own lives?

It is a choice that anyone can make in the developed world.

Yes, that is a choice. You can also start your own business or get IT work elsewhere. Now, if you really are so incompetent that you can't do any better than McDonalds as an alternate job, then your employer deserves your gratitude not your spite for giving you a job so much better than what you could find on your own.

I don't see any sign of that. China, for example, is a great supporter of the developed world cutting back at China's benefit. In fact, I think this particular game boils down to the developed world committing economic suicide while China builds up for its chance at being a superpower.

Sure, they do. Just because there are mild, short term, negative consequences doesn't mean you don't have a choice. This whining reminds me of PvP games where people complain that someone who has played the game for a couple of years just so happens to be a better player than the person who signed up yesterday. So here's the usual advice given for delicate flowers: man up, L2P, and flush your victim card down the toilet.

' And workers collude on what they want as well. Not really seeing the reason to care here. This temporary advantage of employers is due both to the considerable increase in supply of global labor over the past few decades and remarkably short-sighted labor policy in the developed world over that same period.

Sure, if you're a slave in Sudan. In the developed world, everyone does have the option of working somewhere else.

Put it on paper, then we'll discuss whether to accept it or not as a contract with the rest of society.

These reports are predicting high levels of heating in the future.

Only because those expectations are low over the near future.

In other words, as long as somebody else does the actual work? That doesn't sound like interest to me.

Why would "we" ever realize we were wrong? The tiger-repelling rock worked.

Documentation != evidence. The fallacy of argument through obfuscation is just as much a fallacy as anything else.

So what? We were speaking of positive and negative feedbacks. You pointed out a positive feedback given without context and I pointed out a negative feedback associated with the same system.

And I don't care that there is global warming. What I care about are the costs and benefits of the change.

I grant that the perfectionism of the original poster is a bad idea, but that's just not the problem with global warming. There's considerable uncertainty greater than 10% that the cure is better than the disease, coupled with IMHO a considerable degree of bias towards presenting an argument for strong reductions in fossil fuel consumption.

For example, there's this bizarre insistence on only considering how to keep global warming under 2 C increase.

That's not going to happen unless both the degree of global warming is less than expected and humanity has a solid replacement for fossil fuels that decisively replaces them economically. Eg, renewables so much cheaper that they not only wipe out coal plants in electricity production, but also result in considerably cheaper electric vehicles than gas-powered vehicles. I think that is unlikely even if developed world countries start putting punitive taxes on carbon emissions. The rest of the world just isn't interested aside from relatively susceptible outliers like Bangladesh or the Micronesia countries.

Unless, it has a negative effect on air quality and city air quality turns out to be worse. The big problem with global warming remedies, is that they can increase global poverty. That tends to increase not decrease pollution.

And I disagree that things like the Stern Report are more within our current knowledge than the skepticism about these reports.

Sure, it is. As Earth shifts to higher temperatures, the amount of heat radiated to space increases as well.