> you are clearly an irrational narcissist extremist

You are clearly unaware of what the words "irrational", "narcissist", and "extremist" mean.

> A paper that explores what might happen is not evidence.

A paper that explores what is increasingly likely to happen as the very people with the power and influence necessary to mitigate further climatological destruction is absolutely evidence. People are already dying in growing numbers from heat waves. People are already feeling the effects of worsening droughts. People are already being invaded over dwindling natural resources.

The people in those private jets are either somehow entirely uninformed about the gravity of the situation or else are aware but simply don't care. Either one is unacceptable.

> But you seem to think it's drastic enough to justify and defend killing?

I strongly suspect, based on the available evidence, that it's drastic enough for people to be justifiably agitated about it. "Oh mister millionaire, would you pretty please stop poisoning our water and atmosphere and soil?"

> I'd rather (maybe) starve in 10 years than see a bunch of extremist bullies taking things into their own hands now.

Whether you like it or not, you're increasingly likely to end up with both the longer the rich and powerful continue to put their own wealth and power before the rest of us.

> one side has a reasonable code of ethics

A code of ethics that puts billionaires' wealth before human life is in no way reasonable.

> That's far more dangerous than putin with nukes, 3 degrees C and china.

If you sincerely believe that some hippies engaging in vandalism (at worst) is more dangerous than even one of those existential threats to humankind (let alone all three), then I pray you someday receive the reality check you so desperately need.

> Now, if you really do believe all of what you said, instead of chaining yourself to a bridge, how about you quit your 1st world job, get rid of your cars, air conditioning, etc.

Those things are extraordinarily tiny compared to the scale of destruction from corporate sources. Climate change is a systemic issue, requiring systemic solutions.

> If you are right, you'll inherit what's left of the earth.

If I'm right, there won't be much to inherit.

> I don't defend the rich either

You've spent the entirety of this thread demonstrating otherwise.

> I do defend everyone's right to live within the law

Legality != morality.

> Because if we go your route, it's 100% already gone.

"Wah hippies blocking rich people from taking off in their private jets is the end of society! I just want to plug my ears and pretend everything's fine, but those rude millennials keep reminding me that humanity's actions have consequences! Wah!"

You have been misled. The sooner you understand this, the sooner you will mature into an asset to humanity's survival in the coming decades rather than continue to immaturely impede it. It doesn't seem likely you ever will given our conversation, and I am truly sorry that your heart is so hardened that you would demand politeness over justice, and would rather starve than permit your fellow man to do anything even slightly uncomfortable to the rich and powerful in defense of one's own rights to life, liberty, and property.

Martin Luther King, Jr. had some choice words about the "white moderate" and the preference for negative peace over positive peace. Said choice words come to mind here.