I much prefer the "It's too late, climate change is here and there's nothing we can do to stop it." cultists over the perennial "WE HAVE TO STOP CLIMATE CHANGE OR NEW YORK WILL BE FLOODED IN 10 YEARS" cultists.
If you believe the GIEC (or whatever they call themselves in English) report, then there is no "reversing global warming" in any scenario that isn't an apocalypse with humans culled to a fraction of current numbers.
Only slowing the rate of warming then reaching an equilibrum because GHG rising has diminishing returns ( estimates betweem 1.5C and 3C per every time you double again concentration ).
And rising sea levels will continue for decades and centuries beyond reaching equilibrum because thermal expansion and ice packs have a relatively slow reaction and aren't going to reach equilibrum in a mere century.
So given China is basically trolling everyone with their new coal powerplants, government ineptitude and incapability to forecast unintended consequences that could negate some or all of the reductions they try to get, how about mitigation instead?
Why are governments still building infrastructures in places they claim will be periodically flooded in a few years or decades? Are they stupid or lying?
There's also another site that has all of these in a big table and lists whether the predictions came true or not. None have so far. I can't find it now though.
I was 20 in late 80's when Bono and his faggots preached that we had only 10 years before climate change becomes irreversible.
The whole point is to buy expensive US LNG and not use the fossil fuel reserves of your country.
I much prefer the "It's too late, climate change is here and there's nothing we can do to stop it." cultists over the perennial "WE HAVE TO STOP CLIMATE CHANGE OR NEW YORK WILL BE FLOODED IN 10 YEARS" cultists.
If you believe the GIEC (or whatever they call themselves in English) report, then there is no "reversing global warming" in any scenario that isn't an apocalypse with humans culled to a fraction of current numbers.
Only slowing the rate of warming then reaching an equilibrum because GHG rising has diminishing returns ( estimates betweem 1.5C and 3C per every time you double again concentration ).
And rising sea levels will continue for decades and centuries beyond reaching equilibrum because thermal expansion and ice packs have a relatively slow reaction and aren't going to reach equilibrum in a mere century.
So given China is basically trolling everyone with their new coal powerplants, government ineptitude and incapability to forecast unintended consequences that could negate some or all of the reductions they try to get, how about mitigation instead?
Why are governments still building infrastructures in places they claim will be periodically flooded in a few years or decades? Are they stupid or lying?
https://realclimatescience.com/fifty-years-of-failed-apocalyptic-forecasts/
https://cei.org/blog/wrong-again-50-years-of-failed-eco-pocalyptic-predictions/
There's also another site that has all of these in a big table and lists whether the predictions came true or not. None have so far. I can't find it now though.