[cagenut]

> 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.

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.

[iudqnolq]

> That is exactly what you are doing in arguing for delay and moderation. To the tune of 38 gigatonnes per year.

I'm arguing for implementing an imperfect plan sooner. I don't understand what you mean.

> 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 the absolute barest possible minimum you should understand to have an informed opinion on the topic.

You're completely right. I saw the start of the link and assumed you linked to the full report.

[cagenut]

> I'm arguing for implementing an imperfect plan sooner. I don't understand what you mean.

then why did you start with

> Why I think you reach the wrong conclusion

I confess I got lost in your extended hypotheticals, but your clear intent was to contradict no?

[iudqnolq]

Yes. Specifically, I believe the following to be incorrect

> We have unfortunately blown our time window for a moderate response.

Because I believe our best option is to work for a moderate response sooner, for the reasons I've already said