3 ms·

2C is the popularized number. In reality it's a range (0.8-2.6 for 2050 and 1.4-1.4-5.8 for 2100) and it's not certain how much humans can do about it or have t

2C is the popularized number. In reality it's a range (0.8-2.6 for 2050 and 1.4-1.4-5.8 for 2100) and it's not certain how much humans can do about it or have to do with it (we are probably affecting it but how much is still an open question) We have been figthing to survive nature from the start. Ex. sea rise is not a problem that can't be solved just look at Holland. http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg2/index.php?idp=29 http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg2/index.php?idp=29

lozenge 9y ago
> it's not certain how much humans can do about it or have to do with it (we are probably affecting it but how much is still an open question) What is your point in saying this? Everything always has uncertainties, but scientists and economists are in agreement there is enough known that we need large changes in energy use (which affects all sectors of the economy). That is found in the latest version of the report you linked to, or even the version you linked. The idea that Bangladesh can "solve" sea level rise because Holland can is laughable. Just look at these maps: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2015/08/bjorn-lomborg-just-a-scientist-with-a-different-opinion/ http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2015/08/bjorn-...
- ThomPete 9y ago
  Not sure there is any reason to debate someone who deliberately oversimplify what I say, call it laughable and then point to a highly biased website. Of course Holland and Bangladesh isn't the same situation so to call your own strawman laughable says a lot about where you are coming from in this. But against my better judgement I am still engaging in the hopes that you are in fact interested in hearing what my point is. Yes everything has uncertainties which would be good to remember in this debate as thats the difference between whether we are doomed or whether the climate will change as I has always done and we need to adjust to it. Instead of trying to claim that we know for a fact what the outcome is, how big our involvement in climate change is, how much we can do something about. Even the IPCC does not deal in such certainties and have toned down their doomsdaying over the years. That's important to keep in mind before we all jump on the "we are doomed" bandwagon. There are things we can do especially these days as we are much better at handling nature than we were 100 years ago which means that no matter how much of climate change is manmade we have a better chance of dealing with the consequences today than if those changes had happened 100 years ago.

lozenge 9y ago

> it's not certain how much humans can do about it or have to do with it (we are probably affecting it but how much is still an open question) What is your point in saying this? Everything always has uncertainties, but scientists and economists are in agreement there is enough known that we need large changes in energy use (which affects all sectors of the economy). That is found in the latest version of the report you linked to, or even the version you linked. The idea that Bangladesh can "solve" sea level rise because Holland can is laughable. Just look at these maps: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2015/08/bjorn-lomborg-just-a-scientist-with-a-different-opinion/ http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2015/08/bjorn-...

ThomPete 9y ago
Not sure there is any reason to debate someone who deliberately oversimplify what I say, call it laughable and then point to a highly biased website. Of course Holland and Bangladesh isn't the same situation so to call your own strawman laughable says a lot about where you are coming from in this. But against my better judgement I am still engaging in the hopes that you are in fact interested in hearing what my point is. Yes everything has uncertainties which would be good to remember in this debate as thats the difference between whether we are doomed or whether the climate will change as I has always done and we need to adjust to it. Instead of trying to claim that we know for a fact what the outcome is, how big our involvement in climate change is, how much we can do something about. Even the IPCC does not deal in such certainties and have toned down their doomsdaying over the years. That's important to keep in mind before we all jump on the "we are doomed" bandwagon. There are things we can do especially these days as we are much better at handling nature than we were 100 years ago which means that no matter how much of climate change is manmade we have a better chance of dealing with the consequences today than if those changes had happened 100 years ago.