Like I said, I wanted to first apologize to you, sincerely

I mean, it's alright, I guess we have kinda been talking past each other this whole time.

It’s not something academics came up with as an actual threshold…” come with the obvious presupposition that there is someone out there saying, to quote the journal you linked, that we “fall off a cliff” at 2°C". Which I am saying is completely incorrect, that no one person taken serious, nor is there any (that I can find) peer reviewed publication on the matter out there that has ever been saying that.

I agree. That is what I was saying. My gripe wasn't with the academics saying that, because I don't think they are saying that. It is however a view that is spread around sometimes by media and the internet.

But also that article sneaks the final, and most harmful idea in at the end, when stating “… if it is not met, we should do everything we can to meet a 2¼°C or 2.5°C goal…” which, takes no accountability of the published research on climate runoff events, and effectively just gives capitalists the out to say “Oops, well we passed 2.5C guess we’ll have to settle for 3C” and incrementing onward, clearly just a dangerous idea in general.

I think it does the opposite. Because these targets are very likely to not be met. So what happens then? That's what is concerning, because I've already seen the rhetoric go around that "well what can one do anyways, we're past the threshold". The other part of what it says is that we should try to do less than 2C, because it's not a switch where "bad" starts. It's another point in an overall shit continuum where basically the only reasonable answer to the question of what to do is always "much more than we are doing".