Computer models are notoriously unreliable, whether predicting climate or economic change.
Hence we had the GFC, and now have to factor in a thawing permafrost/tundra!
The best science tells us the same set of conditions, will always beget the same results or changes!
That is why we need to look at history, and what happened when and how, and the set of conditions at that time.
That historical record tells us that a 2C increase in ambient temperatures, was enough, around 90 million years ago, to cause the previously frozen tundra to melt, and ooze formerly trapped methane into the atmosphere, causing a further warming in ambient temperature averages by around 3C; or if you will; a sum total of 5C as the mean average in increased temperatures.
And a 5C increase, enough according to the paleontological record, to destroy virtually all life on earth.
Nowhere is it written that doing what you've always done, begets a different result.
Exactly so in science!
Create exactly the same conditions and hay presto, exactly the same result.
No ifs buts or maybes!
Those who are betraying the poor, are in fact those clinging like parasitic leeches, to fossil fuel energy supply.
Particularly, when there are vastly cheaper, non carbon alternatives!
Alternatives, if in common use, would wind overall costs way back, and in one fowl swoop, at least double the average EFFECTIVE incomes of today's poor!
And indeed, set the next generation up to be better off than the one proceeding them, and all while effectively working to reduce population pressure, the real harbinger of so called climate change!
Rhrosty

people are being beheaded, genoicide is taking place and still the self interest of the gw religion feels it needs to take precedence. Surely now Kevvie knows its not the moral dilemma of the century. Very similar to the feminist who are silent about mass rapes and thousands of girls sold into slavery. But of course if someone holds a protest banner outside an abortion clinic they are the devil. Warped world.

Since when have the interests of the poor, who have always been the majority of the human population in all times and places, including the future, ever been taken into account by the movers and shakers that make the decisions as to who is going to live or die, or what part of the world, or which ethnic group will be the next sacrifice zone or peoples.

Runner: I disagree mate, and as important as the issues you've raised are, and indeed, what we can actually do to change any of that?
Ours and their children will inherit the world we leave them, when peace finally prevails!?
What good is served if we win the war against the greatest evil ever seen, but lose our habitable planet.
Nowhere is it written we can't walk and chew gum.
But particularly when evil personified Isil, intends to make allegedly increasingly scarce hydrocarbon resources, a preferred weapon of war.
We have a wealth of hydrocarbon resources right here under our very feet, and just changing over to them, would more than halve our carbon foot print, as well as extend our fuel reserve, to several decades at the very least.
And possibly needed, to eventually prevail over this intense evil!?
So, whether you do or don't believe in climate change mate, matters not!
When just on economic and enduring self defense grounds, we need to cut the M.E oil umbilical cord, if only to serve the ultimate justice based interests, you have cited.
Absolutely no harm will be done by changing over to less expensive, vastly more sustainable alternatives, which would have the added advantage, of finally putting our essential fuels, out of the hands/reach of evildoers and dictators!
Essential, in order for us to be able to effectively deal with the unthinkable obscenities, you've already identified!
It not either either, but both.
At the end of the day, simply winning the war against poverty, will also win the completely essential war of hearts and minds for us.
And that cause is completely underpinned, by a change over to much cheaper alternatives!
Which simply has to include, cheaper than coal thorium, biogas and Algae based endlessly sustainable liquid fuel alternatives; which according to industry experts, could by retailed for just 44 cents a litre.
And just what we might just need, to permanently prevail against Isil!
Cheers, Rhrosty.

Rhrosty

if the billions wasted on the gw scare had been put into cleaning up the environment, planting trees and doing some useful research instead of manipulating data to try and match pathtetic predictions I would agree with you. Look at the millions Gore has scammed from people by scaring them with a pack of lies while living like a king. True scientist must be in despair. You can't tell me the Greens really care about the environment. It is simply ideology and their hyprocrisy is plain to anyone wanting to see the truth.

Runner:
Have to agree with you the greens seem to be little more than ideologues, full of mixed (manifestly mad) messages and a hidden anti development agenda?
If they were truly serious about Global warming, they would have been first to embrace the nuclear power option?
Instead of just limiting us to just the two most expensive least reliable options!
Wind and solar!
Neither of which actually addresses the interests of the poor, but rather exacerbates poverty in all its forms and guises.
And while its possible to agree with much of your post, no real good can ever be served by regretting the past.
What's done is done.
And yes, absolutely, we need to rely exclusively on good science, which as always tells us, doing what you've always done, will get you what you've always got!
No ifs, buts or maybes; or possible exclusions/different set of results!
Cheers, Rhrosty.