Finally, somebody is telling the truth about CO2. Not all is grim about climate. The things are in the middle, as always. Reality is neither black nor white.
"'Everything is on fire, but at least this guy is not cold anymore!'; Cool, at least somebody is saying the truth, not everything is black".
There's no middle. There are projections, and there are what we are already seeing.
Of course reality is complex. Of course increasing CO2 levels might have some benefits. But there's no way, all things considered, it's a net benefit overall. Why would you need to point out that look, there are benefits? It doesn't matter. We still need to fix this and for that, we need more concern about climate change, not less (and above all, the relevant people to be concerned).
All this assuming that the planet going greener is a good thing at all. The second sentence of the linked article is literally "Scientists are worried".
This seems like a very dogmatic statement to make. Especially when weighed with benefits of cheap energy and economic growth. A wealthier world can build the infrastructure to handle potentially negative effects of climate change.
The more extreme environmentalists and marxists say we should be engaging in degrowth, which would just result in a kind of feudal and static society, even more vulnerable to climate change. It should also be noted that the Little Ice Age in Europe was associated with scarcity and famine, while the Roman Warm Period was associated with golden ages of several civilizations across the world.
> This seems like a very dogmatic statement to make
Do you think climate change could have a net benefit? I don't think that thinking that's false is dogmatic.
It's too late for "we'll manage". Time to go for "We need to manage now" because...
> A wealthier world can build the infrastructure to handle potentially negative effects of climate change.
... has not happened. The wealthy civilization needs to want it and make it a priority now.
Anyway, I'm replying to someone who speaks about potentially negative effects of climate change. Wake up! It's not "potentially" anymore, it's already started!
"Technology will save us" is a tired trope at this point.
A wealthier world building the infrastructure to handle the negative effects does not look how you think it does. It doesn't look like a unified concerted effort to hold back the tide in a figurative sense. It looks like communities that live on shorelines building levees, to hold back the tide in a literal sense. What you want and what need to be done are not the same things. You can't say we have failed just because the solution isn't what you wish it were. The world is changing and people will manage.
Always? Really?
Please, list all the advantages and nuance for leaded gasoline, paint, and other uses of lead. Or maybe all the nuanced advantageous effects that asbestos has on your lungs?
And if we move beyond environmental issues things get even more ridiculous, but let's not get too side-tracked.
Leaded paint was better than non-leaded paint. Leaded solder also. Asbestos was the wonder material.
Yes, the negatives outweighed the positives. But the truth was absolutely in the middle in these cases.
The materials were great. The unintended/unexpected side effects were bad.
Leaded gasoline, leaded paint, leaded solder, and asbestos are all still used today where the conditions are suitable, because the material is superior for the application.