However, trying to shoehorn this natural fact into a political / carbon-credit trading scheme is deeply cynical that is apparent to most >100 IQ people.
Yeah but the majority of human history has been with ice on the poles.
We might have to reorganize a lot of things (agricultural practices, national borders, location of cities, ...) if that changes.
The layers of uncertainty are piled so high, that a rational response is "wait and see". I do recognize however this approach is negative to grant funding, so these 'scientist' lapse into apocalyptic fire-and-brimstone talk to rouse the faithful.
Aside from just counter-arguing your point which is easily brushed off, I want to ask a genuine question - What about this dialogue makes you skeptical? What's your view of what's really going on? Politically or otherwise.
Most of the people on HN will be fine; we'll be alive, we'll still have jobs, and we'll have food and energy albeit at a higher price. Our societies may end up a bit poorer and the standard of living will probably be on a level that your grandparents had in the 70s.
Hundreds of millions of other people will be less fortunate.
+2.5C increase over tens of years, as predicted? Very different story.
Most of the world's major population centers are near the coast. With significant sea level rise, those people will move. We're not merely talking about millions of refugees here, but possibly a billion. Put your mind to work and imagine what that will do.
Sure Earth climate was worst 4,5 billions years ago, however Earth capacity to support the life of billions human is and will be severely impacted, and this is was matter for us, mere mortals.
What we care about is that all of industrialized human civilization has been with polar ice caps...