So you are saying that there are more people living in places that will have negative impacts from climate change than positive impacts. I could see that being a reasonable argument. Should we then compensate those who would otherwise benefit if we reversed climate change?

> even if climate change doesn't exist

From what I've read climate change very much exists and it's due to the increase in co2.

But I haven't seen people put out forecasts they are confident in on what the impacts will be. I'm not kidding, a few times per year here in Hawaii the forecast for rain is 0% while it is raining. And this is a place with very advanced military and atmospheric stations. I think scientists have made an overwhelming convincing case climate change is real and it's from an increase in co2, but I have seen no models that I can play with specifically predicting how it will affect certain regions. Instead people say "it will be bad". If you think because scientists say something is good or bad without showing you all the underlying data and allowing you to reproduce things yourself at home, I've got some government approved pain pills to sell you.

> fighting pollution will always be a good thing if you care about your lungs or your health in general.

I agree with this.

I guess my point is the first step is better forecasting and modeling tools. Otherwise we really don't know what we are fighting, other than higher temperatures.