Sure people will get hurt.
From today's London Times:
In just two hours searching the Wikileaks archive The Times found the names of dozens of Afghans credited with providing intelligence to US forces. Their villages are given full identification....
In an inside page they quote examples, with names redacted (redactions by The Times, not Wikileaks).
There's a line- this is the wrong side.
Some important points are commonly lost in the climate change debate, not helped by the fact that the loudest voices are as likely to be motivated by ideology as informed by science.
There are few certainties- even the strongest advocates accept the increase by 2050 could be anything from 1 degree (manageable) to 5 degrees (catastrophic). There is definitely a finite probability (in my judgemement- but I'm not a climate scientist- high) that the planet is getting warmer, and also a finite probability (in my judgement less high but still significant) that the effect is man made.
So why don't we just cool it a bit, and see climate change policy for what it is- an exercise in risk management.
I don't think I'm about to wreck my car, and my house probably isn't going to burn down, but I insure both, because either event would hurt me seriously. I apply the classic risk management approach:
concern=probability of occurence * severity of consequence.
How about the same logic to the planet?