Hmmm, for non-scientific discussions, I tend to like the XKCD scale for global temperature averages. https://xkcd.com/1379/ https://xkcd.com/1379/ Going above

Hmmm, for non-scientific discussions, I tend to like the XKCD scale for global temperature averages. https://xkcd.com/1379/ https://xkcd.com/1379/ Going above Paris gets into the "there be dragons" realm of human survival. The Pentagon is predicting mass migrations, wars, famine, and economic implosion[1]. I feel like that certainly constitutes "race for our lives" level of rhetoric. Usually, when someone balks at strong rhetoric on climate change they are (1) unaware of the scale and severity of the problem or (2) don't see those affected as within their "our" definition (e.g. it will happen to other people, not my people). The former is slowly being solved through increased education and awareness, the later will likely always be present due to human tribalism and racism. As far as the malaria theory, it's a very different strategy when you are actively causing the problem you are trying to solve. It's as if we are repeatedly shooting ourselves in the foot, then some of us say we should stop, then you say why are you so focused on the foot-shooting vs cancer killing us. One is an immediately addressable problem caused by ourselves, one is a natural threat that is not under our direct and immediate control (thus takes much longer to understand and solve). [1]: https://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/14/us/pentagon-says-global-warming-presents-immediate-security-threat.html https://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/14/us/pentagon-says-global-w...