Climate change: IPCC report is 'code red for humanity'
You seem to be drawing no distinction between the following two possible outcomes:<p>1. Slow carbon emissions now despite the incredible amount we&#x27;ve already added and hope that the damage we&#x27;ve done is not enough to completely ruin the planet.<p>2. Do nothing and let emissions accelerate even further, create an even bigger problem than we&#x27;ve already created. Gamble to an even greater extent with our future.<p>Where in your incredibly long essay have you provided any reason to believe option 2 is better than option 1?<p>As far as I can tell, all you&#x27;ve done is prove we can&#x27;t get back to pre-industrial levels quickly just by stopping emissions today. So what?<p>Who ever said the goal was to get back to pre-industrial levels? I think all climate science believers aim to do is reduce the extent of this incredible gamble and unintended experiment humanity has undertaken. Instead of gambling on a 1% odds of survival slot machine, climate scientists want to slow down and gamble on a 10% odds of survival slot machine. No one ever said we could move that probability back to 100% odds of survival slot machine.<p>To me your post comes across like someone on the Titanic saying &#x27;Hey guys, we&#x27;ve looked at the data and situation, stop thinking these 20 lifeboats will be able to rescue us. Just give up.&#x27; when there are some people arguing that the ship isn&#x27;t sinking at all, and others trying to quickly come up with ways to create more impromptu lifeboats, trying to figure out how to stop the ship from sinking, or trying to urge those that they can to get in the lifeboats, despite the fact some will still die. At the end of the day your post just encourages those who don&#x27;t think the ship is sinking or those that think there&#x27;s no point to try getting in a lifeboat or creating a new one out of furniture to just go back down below deck and listen to the violinists for another hour before drowning.