Kyle,

I commend you for referencing Nature article. There is probably no better source of authority than this!! But now lets READ the articles you referenced.

You ask what stage of grief I am in (referencing stages of acceptance of impending unavoidable death I assume). and you declare yourself more advanced than me in your acceptance of this reality.

Here you are speaking very much like the echo chamber that we are facing virtually certain existential consequences. First lets quantify this... how about:

At least >90% certain. After all it would be premature to be in "acceptance" of our impending death if we had a 20% chance of escaping death. And if we are saying we are in "acceptance" then >10x of COVID deaths, which was bad, but very far from existential for our species, so > 30M dead. Or more than >10 trillion is USD worth of required remediation. That might sound like a big number, but remember anyone who really tries to estimate the costs of really pulling our CO2 back to historic levels very quickly gets into the single or double digit trillions. And of course biosystem collapse from species loss would certainly result in many human deaths so that case is also covered.

Now lets see if our nature articles give us anything like these levels of certainty, or anything like these levels of consequences?

>>> From your "Risks .... " article:

Our results suggest that model-blind spots for such high-impact but deeply-uncertain hazards have to be anticipated and accounted for in meaningful climate risk assessments.

Basically they are saying there are reasons to believe things can be worse than current models suggest. ok, but how much worse? and what are their estimates for the likely hood of this? They dont quantify either, because they dont know.

>>>.From land atmosphere:

Our results indicate that crop failure increases on average by around 40% when both upwind and local land–atmosphere feedbacks

here they do quantify a level of effect. but they DONT quantify the increase in propensity of these two feedbacks to occur simultaneously as a function of climate change. (I doubt they know it, as this would greatly increase the import of their claims if known.)

~~~

Here is the thing: If we want to avoid species loss there things we could do spending 10s of billions on this would have a massive effect. same with human famine. but spending that much on CO2 reduction would barely be a drop in the bucket. even if we were sure exactly what catastrophe we were avoiding (which we really dont know).

Prove me wrong. Keep reading your Science articles and find one that gives us a level of certainty on a quantified end outcome (e. g. loss of human life, animal life, or dollars). I have yet to find such a thing. I don't think we know it.

And also notice, a reasonable person could decide to act even without certainty of outcome. One might say well even the possibility of bad outcome is enough to spend many trillions. ok I cannot argue against this. but this is NOT what the liberal media tells us, and it is not what most believe. I know many who say they will not have children because they "know" there will not be a society worth living in for them. THIS (like your "acceptance" is not written in science articles... it is found in the echo chamber.

~~~

p. s. I am very happy to look at more Nature articles if there is one closer to my request.