My objection is that we as humans don't have the right to dictate what temperature the world is set at. Even if it's more economically beneficial for us to not change our behaviors, it's arrogant to think that our species is the only important one.

I haven't ready the fine details of the economic analysis they've done, but I don't think that they have (or are able to) calculate the effects that warmer global temperatures will have on all species on all parts of the earth. If they have gone into that much detail and still found it more beneficial to let temperatures rise then I wouldn't have an objection.

I think they would calculate the cost of losing a particular species by considering its direct and indirect value to humans. If you think that other species have intrinsic rights and value outside of what uses humans have for them ("uses" includes looking at and enjoying them), then the analysis will not be relevant to you. Neither will most other political/economic calculations made in consideration of almost any other topic.

Well, first there's the question of how we should prioritize. Should we Americans, put the interests for starving people in other countries ahead of climate change in ours? I have no doubt that South Americans should worry more about malaria, since they're dying of it now, I have serious reservations as to whether or not I should.

If there were some global pool of money that needed to be prioritized, that would be one thing. When you're asking individual citizens of individual countries to prioritize, you're going to get very different results.

As an American, I want my money to go toward improving the lives of Americans.

"As an American, I want my money to go toward improving the lives of Americans" ... wow! That seems quite isolationist.

I'm not an American but I don't think it's too "isolationist".

What's different about that than saying: "I want the food that I buy to feed my family". "I want the money I pay on my shelter to shelter my family."

It seems that everyone, wants the money they spend to help them and their loved ones to one extent or another. Saying I want to help my countrymen I read as just being an exstention to this.

Right. It's maybe nationalist, or even a bit solipsistic, but I don't see isolationist.

You're both correct of course. I used the term isolationist because America has a reputation for outward generosity. If you ignore the past 25 years where all aid (generosity) has been tied to extraneous religious/political demands America has by far been the most generous world donor to disaster relief and other world development programs (again I'm ignoring the accusations of world manipulation that any super power does as it 'polices' the world).

More and more frequently I hear statements from Americans about looking after 'home' first despite the fact that looking at the statistics Americans should lead an idyllic life while many go hungry every night.

Being the only world super power (at least for the next 20 years) the world can't afford America to constantly look inwards. If it does, it will loose it's super power status even more quickly.