Nothing wrong with wanting it, but a research paper is not the place to express personal opinions on how other people should behave. It's not a result they got from their own work, just rhetoric they know they're supposed to repeat, perhaps for safety of their careers, or perhaps because they unethically want to use their platform for activism.

I've accepted that we are going to destroy ourselves and there is essentially nothing to be done at this point, but isn't that generally considered a bad thing? I'm surprised that endeavoring to continue the existence of humanity is so controversial.

Climate change is no threat to the existence of humanity. You've been misled by extremists.

Think of the children!

> In debate, it is a plea for pity that is used as an appeal to emotion, and therefore may become a logical fallacy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Think_of_the_children

Yes, I never really got the appeal myself, but I'm told that people do in fact place great value on children which is why I'm so surprised at their willingness to destroy the planet.

"destroy the planet" is pretty much an exaggregation which demonstrates nicely that you seem to be alarmist. No point in having a discussion then.

6 degrees Celsius will basically render the Earth inhospitable for human occupation, but perhaps with some remnants remaining near the poles. Some of the latest work from James Hansen (whose previous work has been quite prescient) is suggesting that 10 degrees is likely. I apologize for my hyperbole.

6 deg of what? fahrenheit, celsiius? And what, increase or decrease? Inaccurate alarmists are even wrose. Please dont even reply, I couldnt care less about your opinions.

I specified Celsius. And being willfully foolish as to the direction of the temperature change is childish.