Hello again :) You've previously rejected scientific studies, so this time I won't include any, and will keep this as brief as possible. If you'll find that you

Hello again :) You've previously rejected scientific studies, so this time I won't include any, and will keep this as brief as possible. If you'll find that you'd like some, ask and I shall provide. > Which has already happened True. > and is irreversible as far as we know Not true. > change on the scale that would be needed to mitigate (there is no reversing, only mitigation) would require mass casualties, because it would require deindustrialization A superlative suggestion, sir. With just two minor flaws. One, it's not true. And two, it's not true. Now I realise that, technically speaking, that's only one flaw; but I thought it was such a big one, it was worth mentioning twice. > Yes, but we know what may improve our chances. What would that be?