4 ms·
> severe, apocalyptic proclamations do you mean projections made by climate scientists that have, so far, been far too conservative in nature?
by seppin 7y ago
> severe, apocalyptic proclamations
do you mean projections made by climate scientists that have, so far, been far too conservative in nature?
- gnusty_gnurc 7y agoAs I said elsewhere: the IPCC report says we'll see somewhere around 5% global GDP reduction in 2100, in a world that's vastly wealthier than today. In my opinion, she uses dramatic, condemnatory rhetoric far beyond the conclusions of scientists.
- seppin 7y agoI don't know why you are bringing up GDP numbers when the UN's conservative estimate for climate refugees is 1 billion people, but fine lets go there. The political problems we are seeing today, the threats to democracy and instability are due to a slow down in growth (most places still growing). If you were to stop that growth, or even contract the world economy, the effect on our societies, political systems, etc. would be catastrophic. In short, everyone's economy is built on perpetual growth. If that growth stops or reverse, everything falls down. And you don't need to get to 2100 before civil society breaks down. So either you think none of the above will happen (and do explain why) or you do and you still don't think it warrants immediate and drastic action. Which also requires an explanation.
- gnusty_gnurc 7y ago> In the no policy baseline temperature rises by 3.66°C by 2100, resulting in global GDP loss of 2.6% (5-95% percentile range 0.5–8.2%), as compared with 0.3% (0.1–0.5%) by 2100 in the 1.5°C scenario and 0.5% (0.1–1.0%) in the 2°C scenario. https://report.ipcc.ch/sr15/pdf/sr15_chapter3.pdf https://report.ipcc.ch/sr15/pdf/sr15_chapter3.pdf
- seppin 7y agoYes what does any of that have to do with what I said?