I think we're paying for climate change already in direct quantifiable terms. Local government rates include a fire levy and it appears in future we may all pay a flood levy, the financial kind not the earthworks. Some of the current food price rises could be attributed to extreme weather events, either too much or too little rain. Insurance premiums could rise for residents in hazard prone areas even if those hazards are slow (eg coastal erosion) or infrequent like fire.

Another multiplier effect is the way more difficult farming conditions could combine with more expensive farm inputs like fuel and fertiliser. Conceivably the combination could reach a sudden tipping point making grocery bills unaffordable. People may have less money for travel and entertainment so those industries will suffer. Another cost is illegal immigration triggered by climate change. Therefore in evaluating climate change costs we should look at possible cascading effects.

People who have lost

Their lives, homes and livelihoods

Are already paying

We need to remember that "climate change" is shorthand for "catastrophic anthropogenic global warming justifying policy action".

The supposed evidence for this proposition depends on an entire industry, or empire, of government-funded technicians and other interested dependants, who freely manipulate, destroy, misrepresent and lie about the data to try get whatever results they want.

The proof that it is an irrational belief system is that any weather or climate event whatsoever is taken as proof. If the weather is especially hot, or especially cold, or drought, or rain, the climate alarmists claim this is proof of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming justifying policy action.

Anyone who has ever used a spreadsheet will have some idea how bodgy are the computer models used by the parasite class to bodge up the results they want.

But even if they were conceded, all that would tell us is that there is a trend that temperatures are going up. So what? Al Gore has long since confessed the lie to his hockey stick graph, which governments all over the world are still indoctrinating children with.

There is no basis for the wild claims that any given weather event is proof of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming justifying policy action; a method which the gnostic warmists themselves abnegate. But the fact is, the people making these claims are not gods or superhumans, and they simply don't know, and cannot calculate, what would be the economic costs or benefits either way.

But we do know that the effect of all these policy measures will be to greatly curtail production including food production, by diverting scarce resources into expensive green toys and corrupt boondoggles for the elite in the financial sector, at a time when there are food shortages.

Perhaps if all the money now going into climate junketing, redistribution and corruption, were to go for productive purposes that actually satisfy human needs?

There is no proof that climate variability is any different now to what it was in the 20th Century.
TV broadcasting is more intensive and we now see devastating events as they happen (or in the case of overseas, shortly after) whereas we either never saw them at all or on the Newsreels at the cinema.
Events worldwide now happen and are fed to us instantly. They don't happen more frequently. Even the IPCC does not claim an increase in frequency.

The storms and floodings (both riverine and from the sea) of the little ice age are known to have been more devastating and dramatic than the list cited this article. But even if you assume temperatues will increase and more extreme events will occur, the economics still don't not add up to doing anything. You also have to assume a very low rediscount (investment) rate when calculating the present value of future damage.

Stern had to do all of the above plus a few other assumptions to make the economic case add up to doing something. Garnaut msanaged to get around this problem of the economic case just not adding up by making another, extreme assumption.. sorry, no case..

Articles on climate change always seem to bring out those waiting for 100% absolute proof of the link between fossil fuel burning, carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and climate change. Even 95% probability it seems just isn't enough for them. For these people as long as there is even the tiniest possibility that explanations and linkages might not be 100% right then there is no need to take action.

It would be nice if there was another Earth out there that could act as a "control" - exactly the same as our Earth but with no fossil fuel burning so that we could compare their climate with ours and come to our conclusions.

As there isn't I am left wondering what evidence and how much evidence would actually persuade these people? This would be a good question for Peter, Phoenix94 and Curmudgeon to think about.

The desire for absolute certainty before acting exists with all people in all walks of life in all aspects of life. However some maturity is required to accept that we have to instead rely on the aggregation of evidence from different sources, or even balance of probabilities, and at some point agree that we have enough evidence to justify action. For climate change for me and many others, that point came long ago not least because the risks are so large.

In writing this I am not expecting any converts on this forum any time soon, because I am reminded of the following: "People's belief systems are changeable, but this process is complicated and is usually triggered by introspective interrogation and critical thinking, not by external correction and imposition of views".