I think it is also important for people to understand that global warming doesn't simply manifest itself by making the weather warmer. Other types of extreme weather can be a result of global warming. Heavy rainfall coupled with unusually dry periods. Floods. Hurricanes. This is how it starts.
A lot of people just do not understand/aren't informed on this concept. At least with my experience conversing this topic.
This is exactly why "climate change" term was invented. Since what are experiencing is not necessary warming in all situation, if you want to change global climate you first have to go throught braking of the existing system and that is turbulent process with possitive and negative feedbacks. However the end result will be clearly warmer world once the "dams" of existing system brakes. Climate changes is also good term because it isn't focused just on temeratures. Since this process also changes: abount of rainfall, how it is scattered throught a year, species that live in certain areas, number of days under snow, wind direction, cloud cover, frequency of droughts, stability of ecosystem and food chains, sea level, etc etc. This problem is much much more than just a temperature problem.
Why are we only hearing the negative effects of global warming? Why aren't we given the positive effects of elevated CO2 levels and warmer temperatures? Warmer weather and greater CO2 levels mean greater crop yields (cheaper food prices and less starvation), less money spent on fuel costs (again, benefitting the poor), and a slowing down of desertification. The fact that climate change hysterics only present 1 side of the picture should tell you that these are not honest and impartial players.
Because what you are saying is science of "high school level" and when you go deeper into science this logic completely brakes. As I have shown a few posts up the process of climate change is melting glaciers and they are basically water towers of the world that create/maintain rivers during summers that are warm and often dry. Therefore when glaciers disappear there will be a fundamental change how landscapes around the world work. Only one continent on this world doesn't have glaciers and it is also happens to be the driest one (Australia).
Another problem is that warming in technical terms means more energy and more energy means more turbulance and extremes. What means longers and stronger droughts, while on the other hand precipitation will be increased what can cause temporary floods that can quckly destroy crops for that year. Also it can happen that change in temperatre can shift wind patters so some areas can have drastically reduced rainfall or they can drastical increase of rainfall. What is problem since most crops in medium climate zones rot or they get all kind of parasites and fungals if the weather has too much moisture (and sovling that only makes food more toxic due to various chemicals).
Third problem is that we now have plants that are made for relatively cold period of Earth's history, but as we suddenly and artificially rise temperature plants may suffer from being unadapted to new conditions. What is a problem that will be extra expressed due to melting glaciers and changes in rainfall. Another problem that can occurre in some countries like Bangladesh is that increase of sea level will "swallow" a part of crop zones.
Another CAPITAL problem is that carbon dioxide is causing acidification of oceans and that process is harming microorganisms that live in ocean water. However those organism are the basis/foundation for all food chains in the sees. Therefore once these organisms drop in population all other forms of life in the ocean will do the same as well. What is a huge problem since there is something like 3 billion people on this world that are completely dependant upon sea food in order to have something to eat.
Once you go into the matter even more deeper it gets far more complex that this, but the bottom line is that it is unrealistic to expect better food situation world wide if the current practices continue.
I think you already know the answer. There is an agenda out there to have wealthy Western countries transfer massive amounts of wealth to less wealthy countries in the world. The recent Paris talks may have been about climate change but the overall agreement reached basically amounted to another wealth transfer program from relatively high IQ wealthy nations to relatively low IQ not so wealthy nations.
Before people some people's sphincters begin to tighten I'm not even arguing whether man-made global warming is as catastrophic for mankind and the environment as some claim it is ( or isn't) I'm just talking about what sort of multi-national government solutions were proposed and accepted. And that solution was more massive wealth transferring.
I have no doubts that in this whole process someone will profit even if the process was not meant to be designed for that. However I think you are missing a few very important elements.
Wealthy nations will give some money to the poor, however poor countries have no means to produce green technology. Therefore they will give that money back into wealthy nations in order that companies there will give them means that produce green energy. Therefore the money will eventually be recycled back into the systems from where it came from. While on the other hand wealthy nations will not have to pay the price for the damages that is caused by emission in poor countries.
Therefore if done right this isn't nearly as crazy as it looks at first.
