Climate change means nothing.

It really doesn't, not to people or even animals. What really matters is habitat change, which may or may not be caused in part by climate change. Climate change may also have a negligible effect on habitats for some plants and animals. The main reason scientists don't talk about habitat change is because that would force scientists to assign a ranking to the factors that cause habitat change. If they were to be honest about the causes of habitat change, they would be forced to admit climate change usually ranks pretty low as a causal factor in most cases.

Examining the vast majority of cases of global habitat change and habitat depletion, the 2 main causes clearly are human overpopulation and human industrialization. If the climate were to remain static, habitats would still disappear. I'm not just talking about animal and plant habitats disappearing. Human habitats are also destroyed from resource depletion from runaway industrialization, and this depletion is then multiplied by runaway overpopulation. While climate change may be a concerning lesser factor toward habitat depletion, the hyperfocus on climate change does little to address the real major causes of habitat depletion. 

Considering the world's general apathy toward climate change, it's alarming to note an even greater global apathy toward runaway population and runaway industrialization. So the question is thus: at what point will this apathy abate? How much habitat needs to be destroyed before scientists focus their studies on the effects of overpopulation and over industrialization? Most of it?

The one sure thing is that the planet has built in defenses from overpopulation and resource depletion with the mechanics of starvation and disease. If humans get to that point, which will happen if these 2 problems are not addressed, it will take thousands of years to reverse the damage if no actions are taken now. Population control will take thousands of years to address if it is to be done humanely through birth control policies. While most plants and animals may be able to migrate and adapt to different climates as they have done so throughout Earth's history, they are no match for human overpopulation, which has wiped out many many more habitats and caused the extinction of countless species long before anyone took a look at the effects of "climate change" on habitats.

remember when people cared, for a short time, about the deforestation of the rain forests?  Was that problem solved or did people just shrug and move onto the next outrage?  I remember discussing something similar a while ago, and what they found was, places that had increased CO2 had increased plant life.  Go figure plants like CO2 whoda thunk it.  Anyway where's a map that shows more green around desert and very arid places.  And what do plants do?  anyone?  anyone?  they produce what?  anyone?  anyone?  Oxygen, that stuff we all need to live.  Any what else do they do?  They make roof top gardens in big cities, they heat or cool the area, anyone?  They cool the area by absorbing the sun.

Air and water quality is a much better and easier fight, just ask people in Flint and Commiefornia.

Even if all of that is true, habitat change/depletion is still predicted to continue far past the most dire climate change predictions of any government funded climatologist.  

Except it's runaway human population and runaway industrialization that are the unspoken culprits.

sure look at places like Detroit with abandon house etc, we don't reuse or re-purpose some lands, we just develop more and more.

That's kind of a bad example though. In rare circumstances, Detroit government has relaxed regulations enough for some people to convert abandoned lots into grazing and farm areas. Socialism actually puts a pretty big halt to runaway industrialization because the government is so inefficient when it is in charge.

maybe, but the general point I was making is that we are wasteful of your resources compared to what we could be reusing and using better, more efficiently, which adds to the ills that people speak of.

forgot, check this

I love how the cold is twice as fatal at extreme heat when comparing deaths in the heat vs deaths in the cold.

maybe they include cold related things like accidens I'm not sure, but yeah having lived in very cold places, even -30f that's far more extreme to the human body than 105 or whatever, shade is generally easy to find, while uncomfortable won't kill you as fast before you are able to remedy your situation.

su much for the 97% consensus lol

Even when you look at stats where you consider all causes of deaths, more people still die in the winter than the summer.