Stopped reading when it quickly became clear you had no interest in answering the question.

you quoted the literal answer. 5-6 Celsius more in Germany means they get summer highs like Florence and Rome got in 1975.

Ie, absolutely compatible with human life, sought after, summer highs

I'm referencing the degree at which specifically weather channels take in order to cultivate an audience for revenue, not whether a 75 degree day that's categorized in heat stroke category confirms the illegitimacy of climate change. It's the same tactic with guns, pharmaceuticals and a lot more.

You cited a 5 to 6 degree C rise over the 1850 to 1900 average. I’m asking what that means for the summer highs.

I am answering that they will be like in Rome and Florence were pre warming, because Germany is 5-6 celsius colder than central Italy.

Rome in 1880 was 5 (or more) celsius warmer than Berlin. If berlin warms 5 celsius you get to the hellscape, horrible weather or Rome (or Florence, or Perugia, and so on).

Yes take into account proximity to the sea, meters over sea level and so on, sure. Pretty sure we can find places with very good weather that are 5-6 celsius warmer than Berling was 1850-1900, with summer highs that are bearable, and with overall a far better weather for human beings than Berlin 1850-1900.

Anyone who argues global warming is ok cos a little area of the world becomes slightly more comfortable temperature-wise is a moron, edging towards imbecility.

Especially if they suggest trying to tackle it is pointless because it'll be fine.

Topic isn't if it is "ok", topic is if it is ok or not for that place.

Anyone denying that cold places get better for human beings with warming is in bad faith.

After we admit Germany has nothing to be scared about global warming, rather it significantly benefits from it, and anyone claiming the opposite is a bad faith interlocutor who loses of intellectual dignity and whose opinion on the topic loses all validity, we can move from there.

You have absolutely no idea of the entire knock-on effects of global warming on Germany. You have no idea of level of flooding, sea level rising etc.

Your tiresome use of sophistry to try and mitigate your ignorance or denial of possibilities of bad as well as good makes you come across as a fool, at best. However, your clear agenda of presenting all the good things that arise from global warming whilst minimising or ignoring the bad just marks you as a troll.

So there is a whole industry doing the exact opposite, paid with taxpayers money in many countries, if i try to counterbalance that obsessive, delirant taxpayer funded narrative i am a troll.

I know that the netherlands with 1960s technology managed meters of sea levels. So i know with an absolute certainty that sea levels, even if they rise at 3-4 sigma in the worst case scenario in IPCC models, are still extremely well maneageble for Germany. And with far far far better technology

I think the point being made is that assuming that a rise from the current +1.2C over 1760 global average to a possible 2.5C, 3C or worse brings with it vastly unpredictable effects (we already see some of these every year even at +1.2C), and that for you to proclaim that you alone understand all of these effects far better than climate scientists, and that they will be hugely beneficial to Germany, is plainly absurd which is why you've been accused of trolling.

However, I think I know you better and understand your point as a contrivance for not having to advocate for remedial action against extremely bad possible outcomes, as you couldn't give a damn about hundreds of millions or even billions of displaced or dead people around the world, as your stated attitude to refugees is to prevent them from immigrating if necessary by force (because if they are breaking a nation's laws according to you that should put them at risk of being killed).

Fair?

Luciom thinks only linearly .
He can’t see how certain region with 2 higher degrees may not necessarily have the same effect in another part of the world where they have the same climate .
He doesn’t understand what the butterfly is probably .
The weather is obviously interconnected but he try to say otherwise ….

For him +2 degrees is equal regardless your starting point .
He don’t know that a 2 degrees higher today as more volatile impact then if u add 2 degrees higher from a lower temperature from 300 years ago or w.e starting point he choses to pick .

What I would be interested of is why Luciom think scientist in climate changes are more bias then other scientist when the scientist method is always applied?

It would be so easy to prove how those that say , climate changes are big issue , are wrong .
There would be easy tons of more scientist reviewed paper to negate them and yet they just can’t , by a ratio of 100-1 ….

When a guy trust as truth what 1% of scientist say it while negating 99% of the others , there isn’t anything u can add to change his mind .
U just enter into faith territory…

This is the problem.

Neither do you. Earths climate has changed many times over millions of years, from times much warmer than now to times much cooler. It is true that rapid climate change will most likely cause much of the mega flora and fauna in the world today to go extinct, because they wont be able to adapt/evolve in time. But because of technology this is less of a concern for humans, and we dont actually know it will result in the doomsday scenarios for humans climate scientists warn of.

Geologic history (and a high school level understanding of chemistry and biology) indicate higher CO2 and warmer temperatures will result in higher levels of rainfall and plant growth, all else being equal. There is a lot of evidence the Sahel/Sahara have actually been greening the last couple decades, for possibly this reason.

If your internal value system causes you to believe it is important there are lions and koalas and salamanders around in the wild in 100 years then this is a reason to support efforts to slow climate change. But it isn't some universal truth this is important, and if Lucium recognizes mass extinctions in the wild will probably happen if CO2 levels in the atmosphere continue to rapidly rise and doesn't think this is important that is valid.

It is true that human activity is causing environmental degradation. But it isn't obvious that continued burning of fossil fuels and releasing CO2 in the atmosphere, as has already occurred many times in earth's history, is that large a cause for concern.

And anyone who is absolutely certain it is, is operating off of faith and not science, IMO.

As far as Lucium's Germany example, my understanding is German's hold a lot of value in their forests, and it is likely a rapid increase in temperature would kill off the forests. So for that reason alone Germans might specifically be against global warming, even if it made winters more pleasant. Someone living in poverty on the borders of the Sahel that can now farm in areas they couldn't 20 years ago might have a different assessment. Like I said, it is a matter of what one values.

So better not to assume it's all going to be for the better and sit back and not actually actively try and stop significant change in a complex system. There are concepts in ecology called robustness (ability to function whilst subject to change) and resiience (ability to return to normal function after disturbance) and ecological systems demonstrably have a tipping point where they will never return to the previous state. Weather systems are somewhat similar. To try and play guess on these is extremely difficult, so better to try and reduce such major, ongoing disturbance as much as possilble


PS ecological robustness and resilience are somewhat tied to the complexity of the system, which, is really about species diversity. So it isn't about koalas and lions and salamanders, it's about trying to not let diversity keep reducing.