3 ms·
I don't understand your point, you're saying the scientific consensus is that we're not going to die, but I see a scientific consensus that keeps alerting us:
by tajen 10y ago
I don't understand your point, you're saying the scientific consensus is that we're not going to die, but I see a scientific consensus that keeps alerting us:
Tornadoes are already here and we believe they're more frequent because of GW. Epidemics are often quoted as a consequence of a warmer, more welcoming climate, along with the decay of bees, hence the famines. NYC is expected to be flooded several times before 2100. Scientists say we'll never keep it under 2 degrees, because of the acceleration of unforeseen methane emissions in permafrost, and they also say if we reach 6 degrees there will only be room for an order of magnitude fewer people on Earth. It all comes from scientists.
The only thing which I can see false in my parent comment is, we won't all die altogether from the same event, but I wasn't really saying that.
- rimliu 10y ago> we believe they're more frequent because of GW No, we actually still not sure about this.
- tajen 10y agoThe consensus is, we're sure. Doubts on the details shouldn't slow us from acting anyway.
- rimliu 10y agoSince when we are sure? Just a few weeks ago some scientist on BBC was talking about extreme events and was careful not to insist that they are a direct consequence of climate change (though there finally appears to be a link). I am aware about consensus on climate change, but not about direct link between it and more frequent or more severe occurrences of extreme weather events. Pretty much all agree that it is likely that changing climate "may likely" bring more of such events but are careful not to directly link any particular case with it.