Contrarians are always useful to make sure we get to the best conclusions. I'm reading this post and right at the start I'm doubting if they understand what th

Contrarians are always useful to make sure we get to the best conclusions. I'm reading this post and right at the start I'm doubting if they understand what they are talking about: > Now let's take a closer look at this reference point of the measurement, which is to limit the increase of the global average temperature to 1.5°C by 2050 from that of the 1850-1900 era. Firstly, the industrialization of the world didn’t start in the 1850s uniformly across the world. [...] Secondly, the global population was 1.2 billion in 1850 and it is projected to reach 9.7 billion by 2050. [...] Is this a right reference to compare global average temperature? If they want to use a fair reference point they should project what would be the global average temperature in pre-industrial time if the population was 9.7 billion and then after 200 years of industrialization measure the increase. This line of thinking makes no sense. The effects of a specific increase in global warming are the same, no matter if the population is 5 billion or 50 billion, or if everyone pollutes or only 10% of the people pollute.