|
|
|
|
|
|
by throwawayzRUU6f
2034 days ago
|
|
|
I don't believe that's what the parent post meant. The state of the art climate modelling predictions output confidence intervals. If you quote the low end of the confidence interval, and claim that climate change is a manageable inconvenience, you'll be (justifiably) called out by climate scientists. If you quote the high end of the confidence interval, and elicit a picture of catastrophic consequences, mass migrations, or even runaway greenhouse effects, the climate scientists are suspiciously aloof. Even if you add zealous insistence that not a single country in the world will benefit from the warming; and that we're hurtling towards becoming the next Venus. |
|
|
I'm not sure I agree with that perception, but even if it were, I don't find that suspicious. It may be that climate scientists are already aware that the current policies are not doing enough to avert the scenario's at the middle end of the confidence interval, so they know the high-end effects are becoming more likely each year.
zealous insistence that not a single country in the world will benefit from the warming
By all means, name a country that's completely self-sufficient for its current development level and is in a climate that can tolerate a 10%-deviation in any direction, and I'm sure many people will be able to suggest scenario's how that country will be negatively affected by the volatility of international markets or relations that are projected to occur in the second half of this century.