The world’s climate goals are not sufficient. They are also unlikely to be met
Since when did science become about predicting what will happen in the future? That concept is completely antithetical to what science is at the core (i.e. making repeatable observations to establish fact). It is impossible to measure and observe something that has yet to happen.<p>A computer climate model cannot predict the future. Believing so is magical thinking and clearly unscientific by definition.<p>I understand that observed trends tend to indicate future direction but this push, rooted in FUD, to make consensus of the scientific community equivalent to absolute fact is a reminder that all humans can have fragility in their logic and thinking in the face of fear.<p>If those in power who say they believe the consensus were really concerned with climate change to the existential degree they claim they would propose forcing India and China to curb emissions up to and including war if necessary. The truth is they see it as a means to their political ends. They see it as a blank check to expand the government&#x27;s control over everyone&#x27;s lives. If you don&#x27;t believe me read the green new deal legislation proposed earlier this year. It reworks the whole of society around a certain political ideology using future predictions about climate change as justification.<p>I would place just as much blame for climate problems on those in the democratic party using climate change to further their ideology as I do the outright climate deniers.<p>Everyday people commenting on reddit and HN may be pure in their intentions but the average politician on either side just uses the topic as a leverage for their own political and monetary interest.