Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
Do you have any source? The global scientific community and more specifically the GIEC have been saying the opposite for years...
If you dig into the sources you will find
Economic predictions:
The most serious mainstream institutions[1] will dress it up us an imminent catastrophe as if humanity itself will collapse if we don't do anything. But once you read the real predictions, you will realise that that it they just say things would be better if you had reduced emissions compared to if we did not, but not compared to today (crucially)
Tail risks and irreversible damage:
I have read on tail risks, ecological collapse, species death and all of these models are strange and not supported by the mainstream generally. For example [2] article says that 5% of our species will go extinct by 2100 or so. That means more than 200k species! And in the last 50 years fewer than 1500 or so went extinct and it is not some abnormal number.
I would encourage you to actually read the studies and see what people believe and the models used.
[1] https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/investing-in-climate-fo...
[2] https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.adp4461
Edit, can't reply:
> Your argument is just linking to credible sources that make the opposite argument as you, and then stating "I disagree" afterwards?
Dude, read the first document and then tell me whether they say things will get worse than now or not. They explicitly compare the counterfactual against with or without emissions not against today. This is my issue with this kind of misinformation.