3 ms·

You're implying that climate scientists had to have known the relative emissions per country into the far future. This is wrong for several reasons: * It doesn

You're implying that climate scientists had to have known the relative emissions per country into the far future. This is wrong for several reasons: * It doesn't matter where the CO2 is released, only that it's released. * Climate models don't predict human carbon emissions. They predict how the climate will respond. * The climate has a lot of momentum, so a sudden increase in carbon doesn't immediately cause a change in temperature. For example, if we completely stop releasing carbon, the climate will still warm another 0.6C [1] [1] https://theconversation.com/if-we-stopped-emitting-greenhouse-gases-right-now-would-we-stop-climate-change-78882 https://theconversation.com/if-we-stopped-emitting-greenhous...

naasking 7y ago
> * It doesn't matter where the CO2 is released, only that it's released. This is the key point. The global economy grows at its own rate, and so we would have produced roughly the same amount of carbon even without China, the distribution would have just been different because similar amounts of manufacturing would have just happened elsewhere. So even without being able to predict the rise of China, the scientists could have roughly predicted the carbon concentration.
panny 7y ago
The discussion is about Exxon, an oil company. The rise of China was fueled predominantly by coal. Thanks for admitting the submission title is an outrageous lie though.
- luc4sdreyer 7y ago
  >The discussion is about Exxon, an oil company. The rise of China was fueled predominantly by coal. I don't see how this relates to anything. >Thanks for admitting the submission title is an outrageous lie though. You seem to be immune to logic, so I can imagine how you arrived at that conclusion.
  - panny 7y ago
    >doesn't understand how the source of CO2 relates to discussion >"you seem to be immune to logic" The jokes write themselves.

naasking 7y ago

> * It doesn't matter where the CO2 is released, only that it's released. This is the key point. The global economy grows at its own rate, and so we would have produced roughly the same amount of carbon even without China, the distribution would have just been different because similar amounts of manufacturing would have just happened elsewhere. So even without being able to predict the rise of China, the scientists could have roughly predicted the carbon concentration.

panny 7y ago

The discussion is about Exxon, an oil company. The rise of China was fueled predominantly by coal. Thanks for admitting the submission title is an outrageous lie though.

luc4sdreyer 7y ago
>The discussion is about Exxon, an oil company. The rise of China was fueled predominantly by coal. I don't see how this relates to anything. >Thanks for admitting the submission title is an outrageous lie though. You seem to be immune to logic, so I can imagine how you arrived at that conclusion.
- panny 7y ago
  >doesn't understand how the source of CO2 relates to discussion >"you seem to be immune to logic" The jokes write themselves.