> ... read the IPCC report and get back to me ... As I stated elsewhere, I'm not inclined to debate the particulars, but I will note that we've learned a LOT s

> ... read the IPCC report and get back to me ... As I stated elsewhere, I'm not inclined to debate the particulars, but I will note that we've learned a LOT since https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPCC_Fifth_Assessment_Report https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPCC_Fifth_Assessment_Report came out seven years ago. The sixth report, due to come out next year, which will still tend toward extremely conservative conclusions, is going to crush the findings in the previous report in terms of 'bad news'. As to the other particulars, I've been researching and reading about those and many other categories for literally decades now. That doesn't make me right, and it doesn't make you wrong, but it has led me to realize and embrace the simple truth that even unlimited, good faith energies applied to debate over the details has basically no impact on anybody's opinions. All that really matters is personal background and personal experiences. And your personal background (including, in large part, your DNA) and personal experiences are different from mine. Going forward, however, we will share awareness of more and more frequent 100 year/500 year/1000 year weather events, for example. I have no way of predicting how that will affect your view on things, and that's fine. Full and deep acceptance is a very useful tool. To cherry pick one item: > ... as scientists we have a responsibility to be accurate ... Amen and amen. It's easier than ever to represent real problems in a hyperbolic fashion, but we must not do that. First: because inflated threats and predictions will cause those among us who are slower to accept the realities ahead to entrench, and be even less likely to see what's really happening. Second and most importantly: our best chance to beat this is to, together, focus on being clear, understanding and calm.