3 ms·

Wow, talk about a straw man. The very same evidence means If we slow carbon emissions over, say, the next decade, warming will slow accordingly with a lag of a

Wow, talk about a straw man. The very same evidence means If we slow carbon emissions over, say, the next decade, warming will slow accordingly with a lag of a few decades. If we reduce emissions a lot, warming will slow a lot. If we stop emissions warning will stop. All within our lifetimes. And every fraction of a degree the globe doesn't warm will have significant impacts to outcomes due to the non-linear effects highlighted in this article. The OPs claim is we can't do anything now to change our trajectory within ours or even our children's lifetimes; that the trajectory of climate change is locked in at this point thanks to the carbon we've already emitted; that "5 years. 10 years. 20 years. 50 years. 100 years. It is all fucked." and that "the future is already written." That's simply false, though in the OPs defense we've only come to understand that recently due to improved modelling. We can meaningfully change our future today. We simply refuse to do so.

BackBlast 5y ago
It's not a straw man. Effects of warming are guesses. Stopping the activities that release carbon is understood much better and stopping cold turkey rights now will very likely result in economic depression, blackouts, inability to heat homes, and death. The main question is, do we invest in a future mitigation or to get off carbon emissions now? Future mitigation had a lot to recommend it from a risk perspective, we wouldn't be throwing good money after bad policy like we might be doing now.
- CarelessExpert 5y ago
  > Effects of warming are guesses. No they're not, though you betray a deep ignorance of the science and success of climate modelling by making use of this well-worn rhetorical falsehood. > stopping cold turkey rights now will very likely result in economic depression, blackouts, inability to heat homes, and death. Yup still a straw man. > The main question is, do we invest in a future mitigation or to get off carbon emissions now? And now it's a false dichotomy. We can and should do all the things: carbon emission reductions now aiming toward net zero, including transition to renewables, efficiency improvements, carbon capture, etc. We should also start scrubbing carbon from the atmosphere, planting trees, and whatever else it takes to get atmospheric carbon levels down. And much of that will help buy us time for societal adaptation: moving folks from coastal areas or regions where the wet bulb temperature will become fatal, making changes to our food supply, etc, etc, all while continuing to decarbonize. BTW, I wouldn't waste time replying. My main goal was to ensure anyone coming across this thread saw a counterargument to what you're putting into the world. It's pretty clear based on you comment history that you won't be moved by some rando on the internet so there's little point in continuing this discussion.

BackBlast 5y ago

It's not a straw man. Effects of warming are guesses. Stopping the activities that release carbon is understood much better and stopping cold turkey rights now will very likely result in economic depression, blackouts, inability to heat homes, and death. The main question is, do we invest in a future mitigation or to get off carbon emissions now? Future mitigation had a lot to recommend it from a risk perspective, we wouldn't be throwing good money after bad policy like we might be doing now.

CarelessExpert 5y ago
> Effects of warming are guesses. No they're not, though you betray a deep ignorance of the science and success of climate modelling by making use of this well-worn rhetorical falsehood. > stopping cold turkey rights now will very likely result in economic depression, blackouts, inability to heat homes, and death. Yup still a straw man. > The main question is, do we invest in a future mitigation or to get off carbon emissions now? And now it's a false dichotomy. We can and should do all the things: carbon emission reductions now aiming toward net zero, including transition to renewables, efficiency improvements, carbon capture, etc. We should also start scrubbing carbon from the atmosphere, planting trees, and whatever else it takes to get atmospheric carbon levels down. And much of that will help buy us time for societal adaptation: moving folks from coastal areas or regions where the wet bulb temperature will become fatal, making changes to our food supply, etc, etc, all while continuing to decarbonize. BTW, I wouldn't waste time replying. My main goal was to ensure anyone coming across this thread saw a counterargument to what you're putting into the world. It's pretty clear based on you comment history that you won't be moved by some rando on the internet so there's little point in continuing this discussion.