[time_to_smile]

> "omg panic!! code red!!" based on the least realistic models in the IPCC reports,

You mean articles like this Climate change: IPCC report is 'code red for humanity'? [0]

Because that specific quote, "code red" is not BBC editorialization. It is a direct quote from UN Secretary-General António Guterres [1]

> Today’s IPCC Working Group 1 report is a code red for humanity. The alarm bells are deafening, and the evidence is irrefutable: greenhouse‑gas emissions from fossil-fuel burning and deforestation are choking our planet and putting billions of people at immediate risk.

People accuse you ave being a skeptic not because you are saying "hey, we should consider this...", it's because, as exemplified by this exact comment, you are deliberately misrepresenting your position to make it seem more legitimate. "Code red" is not based on the "least realistic" models, they are based on our current pathway, that was what made the most recent IPCC report so alarming.

Climate change poses an extremely serious, near term threat to our very way of life. I know that this can be hard to accept, but it is important to, at the very least, not silence those who are pointing this out.

0. https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-58130705

1. https://www.un.org/press/en/2021/sgsm20847.doc.htm

[rglover]

> you are deliberately misrepresenting your position to make it seem more legitimate

I'm literally not. It's in the report [1]. Your condescension here is exactly what I'm getting at. You assume I'm an idiot because we disagree.

[1] https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6... (Page 304, lines 15-27).

Edit: not my own math but this is important, too, and further cements my point: https://twitter.com/RogerPielkeJr/status/1424718032279011339.

[time_to_smile]

I'm honestly confused as to whether or not you are willfully trolling, tricking yourself, or just very scared. You're playing the exact tricks here that I just pointed out in the previous comment but I'm genuinely unsure of your motives. (btw, I don't think you're an idiot, I don't think most climate skeptics are idiots, I think they're terrified beyond what they themselves even realize)

The page you linked to says that RCP 8.5 is very unlikely, but none of the "code red" reports claim otherwise.

All of the "code red" reports claim that we are virtually certain to be unable to stay below 1.5 preindustrial. This is RCP 4.5 and above. Something that if we had this conversation 20 years ago was also viewed as very unlikely.

I think either you don't know or are wildly underestimating the severe impact that these alternative pathways will have on human populations. RCP 8.5 is as horrific as it is unlikely, but all the other pathways we are rushing towards are still absolutely "code red".

In the early 2000s most people earnestly thought we wouldn't get past 1C, now that is impossible.

It's not even worth getting into all the ways that many people agree the IPCC reports tend to be a bit conservative. I'm fine throwing out all of these concerns, and sticking with just the report, but even with just the report, even on RCP 4.5, we're in very real trouble. It is absolutely a 'code red'.

[rglover]

> I'm honestly confused as to whether or not you are willfully trolling, tricking yourself, or just very scared.

None of the above. I'm reading the report and forming my own opinion while factoring out the hyperbole and panic of the media, politicians, etc. My motivation is thinking for myself and considering whether all of the theatrics align with the reality in front of me (they don't).

To further elaborate on my skepticism, perfectly valid technologies that could have been implemented decades ago (while there was plenty of awareness of this problem, as well as "global cooling") like nuclear have been foolishly ignored, discredited, etc. The primary argument I hear is "too expensive" and "too long to build," yet somehow congress manages to find money for inanities to the tune of billions every year. You'd think if this was seriously catastrophic, we'd be going in to debt to finance better energy solutions.

All of what I said above combined with that tells me the motivation of the people trying to scare everyone is disingenuous. When someone's actions don't align with their speech, it's often indicative of dishonesty. Considering how much money is at stake, the probability of that is increased.

[whatisthiseven]

"yet somehow congress manages to find money for inanities to the tune of billions every year. You'd think if this was seriously catastrophic, we'd be going in to debt to finance better energy solutions."

I don't understand. The people in the US Congress are hamstringing themselves and can barely pass their own legislation, yet somehow that inaction and political gridlock, which existed and will exist regardless of climate change, is somehow proof that...climate change isn't as bad?

You know who else also has a ton of money and a willingness to be dishonest? Every company that produces or relies directly on coal, oil, and gas. They ensure Congress is useless and unable to act by funding a party that ensures nothing happens.

I don't understand this take. Those of us that want to solve climate change want nuclear, we want solar, we want it all. We want to give Hydrogen to Aluminum plants to supplant CO2 they release, we want to electricy cars, we want to feed seaweed to cows to stop their farts.

You might be arguing against a loud majority that is repeating dumb stuff, but surely HN attracts people that can ignore the bad policies and arguments and elevate the best?

[rglover]

> is somehow proof that...climate change isn't as bad?

This is a deliberate mischaracterization of my point. No. Read my initial comment. My goal isn't to say climate change isn't bad. You're doing exactly what I called out above.

[whatisthiseven]

"You'd think if this was seriously catastrophic, we'd be going in to debt to finance better energy solutions."

I suppose I could see this as saying "if it really were catastrophic, why aren't we acting like it" as opposed to "it can't be catastrophic if we aren't acting like it".

A subtle difference, but to say it is a "deliberate mischaracterization" is just not true. I read the whole comment chain and I think my initial view was an easy one to arrive at. I would avoid conflating too many things at once.

[moistly]

Your goal appears to be to encourage delay and insouciance.

[modo_mario]

I'd hardly call it deliberate because his/her take is exactly what i got from it as well.

[antifa]

> The primary argument I hear is "too expensive" and "too long to build," yet somehow congress manages to find money for inanities to the tune of billions every year.

Congress is full of corrupt people who can afford to move on a whim, are in the pockets of Big Oil, and plan on retiring and dying before the worst of it hits.

It's very serious, it's just not their problem.