We're talking about the fact that the Earth is Trapping Much More Heat Than Climate Models Forecast. This is related to the combustion of fossil fuels.

The top 1% emit about 15 times the global average for a person. If you got rid of them all you'd still be left with 85% of the problem.

To lead to our current predicament, you need more than just them.

It's not even close to directly. North Korea emits over 15 times the CO2 per international dollar (US dollar adjusted for purchasing power parity) GDP that Norway does.

I know what all those words mean, but not in that order. The problems we have now from fossil fuel burning are increasing heat waves, droughts, floods and storms, rising seal levels, ocean acidification, shifting habitats, declining biodiversity, food and water insecurity, economic losses, and displacement and Migration. Those aren't "captured" by anything, and they didn't create wealth. And what you mean by any problem being "captured in wealth" isn't clear, much less intractable problems, with vast impacts like coral bleaching.

No. There are other sources of wealth than fossil fuels.

Bill Gates is rich, but he doesn't give a fuck if we move to nuclear and renewables. Nor Larry Paige, nor Zuckerberg.

Nope. You have to target fossil fuels. A tonne of CO2 does the same damage to the environment if it is emitted by Warren Buffett or by 500 South Sudanese.

What?
No, Economic incentives motivate individuals, businesses, or governments to make specific economic decisions. Including ones that reduce pollution.

The increased greenhouse effect does have a single cause: The increase in greenhouse gasses.

Wow. So he is. This place is normally better than that.

It's an especially good time to meta-moderate..

I get about four. There's a Faulty Generalization or the fallacy of composition. The vast majority of people informing us about climate change did not attend the Bezos wedding.

There's the Genetic Fallacy. Global warming isn't false because some Elites that we don't like communicate about it.

There's Ad Hominem, specifically appeal to spite. The argument is entirely against a hated subset of the people making the argument, not the argument itself.

The whole thing is a Non-Sequitur fallacy, although, that's generally the case with fallacious arguments.

No, it's the combustion of fossil fuels that affect the climate.

There's certainly a fossil fuel industry propaganda claim that that's tied inseparably from the economy, but this place is news for nerds, not news for gullible idiots. We can see that just because only 8.5% of France's power generation is fossil fuels, that doesn't mean that their economy in general is in any way reduced from what it would be if they were from fossil fuel sources, nor that Norway's 1.2% of power generation is fossil fuels is having a huge negative impact on the economy. Power is important to an economy, but not all economic products have energy as the same proportion of their cost, and in the very common case of the power being electrical, that it is generated by nuclear, geothermal or renewables compared fossil fuels, has no negative effect.

If anything, the opposite. It insulated the cost of the power from the machinations of OPEC, providing a more constant cost, improving the accuracy of business planning.

Vladivostok, Russia is slightly south of Oza, Spain. In January, the mean daily maximum temperature is 10C in Oza, but -8C in Vladivostok. The difference is about half due to the Atlantic meridional overturning circulation (AMOC).

So the collapse of the AMOC, would cool Europe and the UK by something like 10C, and correspondingly increase the heating of tropical West Atlantic. It is still considered an approaching tipping point. Physics-based early warning signal shows that AMOC is on tipping course

No, they're accurate. Even 50-year-old climate models correctly predicted global warming.

Leaving aside that they're right. The reason you should pay attention to them is that they can be used to uncover the mechanisms at play, and therefore the have insight into the impacts of various actions or inactions.

This is 180 wrong. Even without "environmentalism", reducing fossil fuels is many times cheaper for the global economy than paying for adaptation to the changing climate that results. Where "many" is about 7.

It is also incautiously framed if you are genuinely interested in presenting a point of view that you take seriously, and hope that others will take seriously. Environmentalism isn't anti-growth. And transitioning to other energy sources than fossil fuels isn't "controlling your life".

In particular, renewables are now the cheapest source of energy. Cheap energy isn't anti-growth. Quite the opposite. It reduces the cost to every business.

Nuclear is also low carbon emissions. It has its place in the current energy mix, and can produce a constant and predictable supply, which means that you need less storage to maintain supply during longer overcast low wind periods.

But none of that is about "people who want control how you run your life". The only people who have a financial interest in controlling how you run your life have a product who's demand they're seeking to influence. (Which you claim not to care about. Reducing the rate of global warming does not do that. It improves

There is a conversation to be had about geoengineering. The conversation should start with the risk on unintended consequences. Lowering the energy coming into the earth will necessarily reduce photosynthesis, and that is the energy source of almost every ecosystem on the planet. Painting things white is less obviously going to impact

Just the wavelength of the peak frequency?

Wien's Displacement Law is:

T = (peak)/ 5.879 x 10^10 K

Really?

Oprah and Bill Gates own and use private jets?

What should be do about it?

Does that mean that we should not reduce the use of fossil fuels, or that the increasing energy imbalance at the top of the atmosphere is problematic?

But the Koch familiy owns several Cessna Citations, five Learjet 45s and three Bombardier Challenger 300s.. Does that mean that cancel out Oprah's jet, and we should reduce fossil fuels again?

I humbly suggest that perhaps the fact that people with all different abilities to understand climate science (and motivations to not understand it) are amongst the very rich is, in fact, unrelated to the fact that the world's already dangerous warming is accelerating.

I further suggest it is one of those talking points that the fossil fuel industry is paying to have pollute the conversation.

A good quality electric car, comfortable to drive. Other brands of BEV are available, if you hate the Swedes.

Do they? Here's about 1.8 million papers with the search phrase "Global climate change". I've looked through the first few pages, and can't see a denialist on there. How far in do you think the first denialist paper might sit?

I'm disagreeing. I like electric cars.

PR people, and possibly some ex-scientists.

Not as fast as an electric car.

Only if they believe the fossil fuel industry's misinformation. Most people care about human health, biodiversity, agricultural production, fire damage, flood damage, and sea level rise.

Why would you want to? Until climate change damages agricultural production enough to make growing food more lucrative, make solar farms. People do graze between the panels.

They're a reinsurer. They will go bust if they don't correctly account for the increasing costs. The decreasing costs they can cope with.

Why do you suppose you bring up direct deaths by COLD? It wouldn't be ideological climate science denial, would it?

Yeah. If the state is going to deny the increasing cost due to climate change, they're going be very expensive for the taxpayer.

Especially for a reinsurer like Swiss Re, you have to predict the increase in cost when you set the premiums.

Hence the report noting the increasing risks.