> This BS probably works for you with younger dudes, but I've been in thinking capacity since the time it was called 'global warming', and it has always been about "everybody dies unless we stop fossil in ___ years".

Global warming and climate change refer to different things.

By the way, not everybody dies, just far more people than need to. They literally catalogue how many they anticipate in the source you provided.

> TS.C.6.3 Increased heat-related mortality and morbidity are projected globally (very high confidence). Globally, temperature- related mortality is projected to increase under RCP4.5 to RCP8.5, even with adaptation (very high confidence). Tens of thousands of additional deaths are projected under moderate and high global warming scenarios, particularly in north, west and central Africa, with up to year-round exceedance of deadly heat thresholds by 2100 (RCP8.5) (high agreement, robust evidence). In Melbourne, Sydney and Brisbane, urban heat-related excess deaths are projected to increase by about 300 yr-1 (low emission pathway) to 600 yr-1 (high emission pathway) during 2031–2080 relative to 142yr-1 during 1971–2020 (high confidence). In Europe the number of people at high risk of mortality will triple at 3°C compared to 1.5°C warming, in particular in central and southern Europe and urban areas (high confidence). {6.2.2, 7.3.1, 8.4.5, 9.10.2, Figure 9.32, Figure 9.35, 10.4.7, Figure 10.11, 11.3.6, 11.3.6, Table 11.14, 12.3.4, 12.3.8, Figure 12.6, 13.7.1, Figure 13.23, 14.5.6, 15.3.4, 16.5.2}

See what I mean?

> As far as I'm concerned we're already doing it. And we're already on positive trajectory as compared to those RCP scenarios that were extensively used in 90s and 2000s as mainstream scenarios.

Here's the CO^2 trendline. Where's the dip we'd see if we were doing this action?

Oh, and the 90s and 2000s mainstream scenarios? Here are some examples:

From the LA Times in 1989:

> Schneider’s forecast is considerably more ominous.

> “Six of the warmest years in the last 100 occurred in the ‘80s,” he said recently at a meeting of chemists in Miami. “And I’ll give you odds that the ‘90s will be warmer than the ‘80s.”

When that was published in 1989, we were at 0.27C increase. When the Kyoto Protocol was signed 8 years later in 1997, it was 0.33C.

Here's an article from 2012:

> "I am a fundamentally optimistic person, but it is getting more and more difficult, because I see the message of science has not fundamentally changed from when I started working in this field, which was 20 years ago," said Thomas Stocker, a professor of climate and environmental physics at the University of Bern in Switzerland.

> Based on two assumptions — that it is not economically feasible for nations to make emissions reductions of more than about 5 percent per year and that increasing carbon dioxide concentrations have a moderate warming effect — he calculates a 2.7 degree Fahrenheit (1.5 degree Celsius) cap on warming, for which island nations vulnerable to rising sea levels have pushed, is already unrealistic. (That cap is often compared to a speed limit for warming; while some consequences — heat waves, species loss and so on — are expected to occur at lesser levels of warming, the repercussions are expected to become more dire as warming increases.)

> Reductions would need to begin by 2027 for the more widely accepted 3.6-degree F (2 degrees C) cap to be achievable, and a 4.5 degree F (2.5 degree C) cap becomes unrealistic after 2040, he calculates.

We were at 0.65C then.

Now, a year after the industrial world shut down to the point that rivers ran clear, it's 0.89C.