if the sea levels rise then populations living in areas which will now be below sea level will suffer.

This is obviously diverting from climate science into a whole range of different fields.

They have documented evidence of it affecting things like natural disasters, we know what temperature ranges are necessary for certain forms of life to survive and thrive, etc etc.

This diverges significantly from the four points that I accepted. And as messytrumpet concluded, the burden of proof lies on the person making the claim. I welcome with open arms any links you could throw my way.

Are you suggesting that we know that temperatures are rising, we know the climate is changing, we know that humans are causing it but that maybe melting ice caps, increased extreme weather scenarios, and changing ecosystems might produce neutral or positive effects for humans? What are you basing that on?

Agree, agree, agree - then into the maybe... and then the burden of proof is now on me to proof either neutral or positive effects.

If we don't aim for net zero emissions then we'd just be saying "We're okay with a little bit of warming", which all the evidence shows is not a good thing.

All the evidence?? Seriously?? Please point me to that conclusion because this is where I'm really not seeing it obviously.

Well the IPCC spells out all the negative consequences of increased temperatures quite well, what part are you disagreeing with and what evidence do you have for your disagreements?

Where in the four points on climate change that I agree with does it spell out all the negative consequences??

I don't really understand your position though - so you agree with the consensus on the fact that it's happening, what's causing it, and all the negative outcomes caused by it, but you disagree with any efforts to stop it just in case there might be some unforeseen positive consequence of increased temperatures?..

Agree with the consensus that it's happening, what's causing it, but don't agree with "all the negative outcomes" - these are well outside the field of climate science, and as you say stray into economics and politics (and a whole range of other fields - this bit is insanely complex, as if the climate science itself wasn't complex enough as it is).

And to be clear, I'm not disagreeing with any efforts, I'm doing my damn well best to understand these efforts and what evidence they're based on, before I lend my support to them.

Thanks for the interaction friend, it's been a great help for me to better understand where I'm at with it all. This was my first real foray into any kind of online discussion in a while and although I enjoyed my discussion with you and messytrumpet, I am so fucken done with this... this digital world really isn't for me. Keep fighting the good fight