4 ms·
You could do worse than read an IPCC report - https://www.ipcc.ch/ https://www.ipcc.ch/ - which aims to distil the agreed impacts. In aiming to present only tha
by NeedMoreTea 7y ago
You could do worse than read an IPCC report - https://www.ipcc.ch/ https://www.ipcc.ch/ - which aims to distil the agreed impacts. In aiming to present only that which is most certain they err on the side of benign conservatism, which has attracted criticism.
A more readable view on possible impacts, which is the result of one journalist's attempt to understand the science, is David Wallace Wells' The Uninhabitable Earth. Whilst well cited throughout he may have included studies and impacts that are less concrete.
For a balanced presentation BBC's Climate Change - The Facts with David Attenborough gives all you should need in an hour.
- mrpopo 7y agoReminder that every single sentence in the IPCC report must be approved unanimously by a panel of government-appointed authors from various countries, including e.g. Saudi Arabia. Therefore IPCC reports are to be considered as quite conservative (the seriousness of the situation is often leveled down). Nonetheless, that's what makes them an irrefutable source. Anyone discrediting the IPCC reports findings can and should be dismissed immediately from the discussion.
- qnsi 7y ago[]
- NeedMoreTea 7y agoBeing an intergovernmental body, they also include representatives from the oil states and administrations who are "wilfully unconvinced" by any science that might impact profit or industrial dominance. Yet IPCC reports still require unanimity. Here's a report of Saudi leading a push to tone down reports to protect their oil interests, which I see as substantively different to making a mistake: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/earth-insight/2014/may/15/ipcc-un-climate-reports-diluted-protect-fossil-fuel-interests https://www.theguardian.com/environment/earth-insight/2014/m...