> Also please answer my question about 2C. Asking this is what led me to realising how much of climate policy is based on convenient politics and not science.
You keep saying climate policy is based on politics, but you are not providing any evidence of that. Please provide evidence of your assertion this is political. You argue that "there is nothing technological stopping this except economics"; that means it isn't feasible unless proven the economics will improve. A proof of concept does not guarantee scale.
My evidence is the lack of a basis for 2C and lack of a cogent plan to limit warming to 2C. I tried to find the basis and instead just found lots of IPCC discussions with no scientific basis.
That’s why I asked: you can find articles saying that a degree of difference is very important, but not the basis for why 2C is used.
If you are arguing that fossil fuels must be shut down immediately, you must have an understanding of why 2C is used, and the difference in harm between 2C and whatever we end up with if we keep emitting. If you are not aware of this science in these cases then you are basing your beliefs on politics.
That’s why I asked: you can find articles saying that a degree of difference is very important, but not the basis for why 2C is used.
If you are arguing that fossil fuels must be shut down immediately, you must have an understanding of why 2C is used, and the difference in harm between 2C and whatever we end up with if we keep emitting. If you are not aware of this science in these cases then you are basing your beliefs on politics.