| Why I think you reach the wrong conclusion, using your analogy: Say you're a week from the paper being due, and need to decide between an A thesis and a B thesis. The A thesis would be great, but you simply can't do the research necessary to prove it in a week. If you went with it your paper would be a complete failure because you'd either spend all your time on research and not have enough time to do the actual writing of the paper, or you decide to spend most of your time writing the paper but it's impossibly to make the arguments because you simply don't have the facts necessary. Instead you pick the B quality thesis, and write a workable paper arguing for it. Sure your paper would be better with a better thesis, but given your position when you started it was your best option. With climate change, if we let perfect be the enemy of the good we might end up doing nothing which is clearly worse than doing something insufficient. Badness scales (nonlinearly) with amount we reduce emissions. We want the best solution we have the ability to implement. (Figuring that out is the hard part, and I don't know enough to do that). Note: Your source is worthless in this forum. No one is going to read through hundreds of pages to figure out if they support your claim. It would be as if I wrote nothing but "You're wrong (cite the Encylcopedia Brittanica)". I'm pretty sure you're right, ironically because of reputable secondary sources I've read that summarized the report. |
That is exactly what you are doing in arguing for delay and moderation. To the tune of 38 gigatonnes per year.
> Note: Your source is worthless in this forum. No one is going to read through hundreds of pages to figure out if they support your claim.
I linked to a JPG with three 1960 - 2100 graphs that lay out exactly what number of gigatons leads to what warming on what timeframe. It is "Figure 1" from the "Summary for Policy Makers". There is nothing more basic or dumbed down that can still be called science.