3 ms·

We got very, very lucky with several factors Population stabilized faster than expected. Gas as a bridge fuel. Marine, solar thermal, geo-thermal, new nucle

We got very, very lucky with several factors Population stabilized faster than expected. Gas as a bridge fuel. Marine, solar thermal, geo-thermal, new nuclear did not hit the exponential curve. Luckily PV, wind and Li-Ion did. The world is relatively sane and peaceful. A US/USSR world would have been more difficult. Interest rates can easily crush renewables even today Etc, etc

sleepysysadmin 5y ago
>We got very, very lucky with several factors Not at all. You look at pages like: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geologic_temperature_record#/media/File:All_palaeotemps.svg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geologic_temperature_record#/m... RCP8.5 is the only RCP listed on the graph with no context that it was never expected to ever happen. They did this because they are wrongfully blowing the issue out of proportion. A clear case of unscientific bias portraying data as far more extreme than is appropriate. There's also this 'greening' factor. https://www.nasa.gov/feature/greening-of-the-earth-mitigates-surface-warming https://www.nasa.gov/feature/greening-of-the-earth-mitigates... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change#Nature_and_wildlife https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change#Nature_and_wild... In the entire article the global greening and anti-desertification is simply not mentioned. This is because they are biased. Another clear case of unscientific bias portraying data as far more extreme than is appropriate. We're on the fourth prediction of the end of the world, they keep saying we have ~10 years left and when their time runs out they just predict it again. Their unscientific bias is clear. You must account for the unscientific bias and then climate change is far less of a concern and we weren't 'lucky'. There's a concerted effort to blow it out of proportion for political reasons.

sleepysysadmin 5y ago

>We got very, very lucky with several factors Not at all. You look at pages like: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geologic_temperature_record#/media/File:All_palaeotemps.svg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geologic_temperature_record#/m... RCP8.5 is the only RCP listed on the graph with no context that it was never expected to ever happen. They did this because they are wrongfully blowing the issue out of proportion. A clear case of unscientific bias portraying data as far more extreme than is appropriate. There's also this 'greening' factor. https://www.nasa.gov/feature/greening-of-the-earth-mitigates-surface-warming https://www.nasa.gov/feature/greening-of-the-earth-mitigates... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change#Nature_and_wildlife https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change#Nature_and_wild... In the entire article the global greening and anti-desertification is simply not mentioned. This is because they are biased. Another clear case of unscientific bias portraying data as far more extreme than is appropriate. We're on the fourth prediction of the end of the world, they keep saying we have ~10 years left and when their time runs out they just predict it again. Their unscientific bias is clear. You must account for the unscientific bias and then climate change is far less of a concern and we weren't 'lucky'. There's a concerted effort to blow it out of proportion for political reasons.