There's a far larger area of the world which is too cold & dry for human tolerance, yet people survive & thrive there. Probably the same for places which are hot & humid.
There are some interesting documentaries on Yakutsk, the "coldest city in the world".
There's historical evidence of global fires & mass extinctions due to Geomagnetic excursions, which we are currently going through right now, leaving Earth vulnerable to space weather.
We are in for a bumpy ride of wild temperature swings & extreme terrestrial weather driven by space weather & Earth being relatively under-protected. We need to adapt to these changes & focus on surviving & thriving with new conditions. Guilt trips about human emissions will not help our survivability when there are significantly bigger forces at play. Only preparedness & focus on the cyclical changes that have occurred on Earth throughout history, some of which is recorded in human history in books, myths, & prehistoric art, will help humanity.
IPCC 6th assessment report, summary for policymakers, page 8/42. Read it.
IPCC is the most conservative science body ever created. It comprises hundreds of scientists from all over the world, including Saudi Arabia and others, who need to unanimously approve each sentence. The role of human emissions in the current warming has been assessed without any possible doubt.
The IPCC is focusing on sensationalist & self-admitted "unlikely" models in their editorials. It's not even the majority view of the models that are being trumped up. Sensation sells. Money talks.
The role of human emissions as the key driver of climate change has plenty of doubt & plenty of money involved pushing a pre-determined outcome with the purpose of imposing taxes & centralizing power.
In the meantime, humanity is left unprepared for cosmic & geologic events (volcanic activity is driven by ionic activity from space) that are going to occur within 1-2 decades which will have drastic impacts. Since other planets in our solar system are seeing major perturbations in their climates, we should take nature more seriously.
There are other models that more heavily use solar forcing, which are gaining in number. It seems like there is increasing momentum in models which feature Solar forcing & recognizing the Geomagnetic field strength as a major factor in climate. These are all just models, but there are a growing number of scientists who are taking natural cycles more seriously than the APGW crowd.
The big global institutions are behind APGW with $Trillions invested in that industrial complex, but there are many independent scientists who are finding that natural phenomena have always been and are still the key drivers of climate change. My bet is on nature, not the wealthy 1% owned institutions with PR departments & editorial spin.
No one discusses IPCC reports. It came out this week, and was discussed at most 10 min per day on major news channels.
IPCC scientists are volunteering for the report, they are not wealthy. They are literally spending their own free time and money writing thousand-pages long reports.
You just choose not to believe the most rational answer because it's inconvenient.
The most rational answer is that the Geomagnetic excursion is causing many of this strange weather phenomenon, amplifying Solar forcing to unprecedented level in modern times, & that the modern warm period has peaked & we are going into a Grand Solar Minimum.
Most of the models factor in Solar Forcing, which was only introduced in CMIP6, to varying degrees. This means models based on <CMIP6 did not include Solar Forcing, which means there has been institutional inertia that completely ignored an important factor into what drives the climate.
This meta-analysis shows the different models & how the different factors are weighted.
> You just choose not to believe the most rational answer because it's inconvenient.
Key word is "believe". You have a belief & your scientific opinion follows that belief. Are you willing to look at the data from the perspective of other beliefs? Are you open to unknown unknowns? If not, you are in danger of practicing Pseudoscience with a pre-determined outcome. Your "belief" determines your understanding of nature.
What's "convenient" is to go along to get along, make as much money as possible over APGW, & receive the social validation that one is "saving the world". There's plenty of money, personal reputation, & many careers that depend on APGW being an "existential crisis".
You should consider if you just choose not to believe the most rational answer because it's inconvenient.
Very few people live in the cold and dry areas, though. If you compare the population densities of places like Siberia or Canada north of the Arctic circle, I think you will struggle to find a single city.
Norway and Russia have a handful of towns near the cost north of the Arctic Circle, but that is largely due to the Gulf Stream keeping the temperatures more livable. Inland, temperatures are not very compatible with human life.
There are some interesting documentaries on Yakutsk, the "coldest city in the world".