RE:If rich countries, do not do anything to fight emissionsSeveral problems here. When you state "in history" you need to preface this by exactly the period covered by this history. You need to realize that temperature records kept are not of any significance on a geologicval scale and hence they are not something we call call a trend of anything. Things including climate change all the time. To think we somehow should magically keep temperatures from changing is the most arrogant thing humanity could come up with. Do you know that oxygen levels in past were ~32% (that is about 300 million years ago). Temperatures are increadibly steady if you really consider the whole system. Hell try to keep the temperature in your house within 1 degree C with your a/c furnace and thermostat for just one day lol. Another issue is with significant figures and accuracy of the old temperature records. Many of the old thermometers were only accurate to about 0.5 degree. So when you see record temperature reported in the media as beeing 1.37 deg C higher than whatever you have to ask yourself where did they get that precise .37 degrees from? Well this is a typical error you get when you divide things like getting an average. Basic science 101, you report your result with wrong number of sig. figs. that was an aoutomatic fial in my time at university, but we may have special accomodations these days, idk :). Interestingly you never ever ever see any graphs of temperature with error bars. They should all have error bars. If I handed in a lab report without error bars that would be fail but again rules have changed ? That error is about +/- .5 degrees for old temp data in some cases. The models rely on consistent data from the same reference points and the growth in populations means that many station have been mover. or have now been developed around which means heat retention is increade (think buildings, roads etc). In Canada that means that 2/3 of data sets are pure garbage, somebecause of gaps in data recrds some because of changes in surroundings of these measuring stations that change the results reported. Also think of the other problem, we use 2D data to model a 3d system. We do not have reliable data from temperatures up in the air column like 10k, 20K 30K meters up. That it totally bonkers if you think about it. We are measuring temperature of a plane (typically 1m above ground surface only. It does not tell you anything about the temperature (and therefore energy storred) by the whole system. Lastly we hear arguments that this is the fastest rate of change in known history. Problem is that we use indirect geological data. We have no geological data that has the granularity to rule out fast rates of change as not happening before. Absence of evidence is not evidence. This may not be the fastest rate of change at all. On geological scale rapid changes over very short periods (so thousands of years maybe) just can't even be detected with the climate proxy records and methods. end of rant about lack of science literacy :)