[defrost]

> Sure, but why even make that argument?

To accurately model a physical system humanity depends upon.

> Nobody cares about this nerd stuff.

Clearly false.

Many do. Military types care about ocean tempretures as it facilitates submarine tracking, for example.

> Maybe the only argument should be that "if we burn it all, then we will all die."

Many would suggest burning 90% of it then. That's 10% shy of we all die so that's got to be ok, okay?

> That should be the title of every climate study going forward, shouldn't it?

This is what you want to hang your stance upon? Uniformly stupid titling?

[consumer451]

I am just tired of this level of inaction, and now with AI data centers, going backwards quickly.

I have decided that I should adopt a more consequentialist philosophy.

I no longer care about winning specific intellectual arguments if those wins do not make the world a better place.

Disclaimer: I still don't know how to state this best. Do you understand what I am attempting to say?

[defrost]

Sure, you like to see evidence of global concerted action to address a global slow boiling frog problem that's unlikely to deeply affect many of the people alive today in G20 non equatorial countries but will very probably fuck up the continuity of life for grand children and great granchildren.

FWiW I read the seminal papers on this from the 1960s in the 1970s and have watched slow changes take place over decades. It's a long haul ongoing issue.

You may get some thoughts or find others to converse with in:

* https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45827352

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Nordhaus

as you determine who Ted Nordhaus is and where he and his group fit on the sprectrum.

I'd suggest you care less about "winning arguments" and focus more on consistently conveying a message that you can back up with exposition, listen to the positions of others, and develop your stance as your knowledge grows.