2 ms·

yeah sure. but this isn't a breathless soundbite. surely there must be room for _actually_ trying to come up with a reasonable picture given what's known and al

yeah sure. but this isn't a breathless soundbite. surely there must be room for _actually_ trying to come up with a reasonable picture given what's known and all the ambiguities. this report seems quite consistent with the general consensus about both the magnitude of temperature change and the impact on systems of importance (i.e. agriculture). it would probably be more relevant to explain why you think this in particular is such a misleading exaggeration - you seem to take that as axiomatic. there have certainly been cases in the past where people (even environmentalists) have said 'hey, hey, wait this is a problem' and it was in fact a problem. why is this not one of those cases?

the_third_wave 5y ago
> yeah sure. but this isn't a breathless soundbite Neither were most of the mentioned publications - Gore's hockey stick excluded. The problem lies in the extreme predictions which the authors themselves know not to be realistic but which they also know will be used as if they are, in this report that would be the cascade of extremes leading to, well, the same results as Malthus/Ehrlich/Meadows/Randers et al came to.
- convolvatron 5y ago
  you're still doing it. you're just stating as an apriori fact that the authors aren't communicating in good faith.