Why is the goal 2°C by 2100 copilot

[catatomic]

If  it was wrong

You should fight it with all your money.
Leave my money out of it.

I am trying to save you money if you count your descendants.

Any properly reckoned money and it would be cheaper to fight climate change, just like it would be cheaper to have a military

 

[catatomic]

If there was a true problem it would be plastered everywhere and I'd know

 

[catatomic]

If  it was wrong

I am trying to save you money if you count your descendants.

Any properly reckoned money and it would be cheaper to fight climate change, just like it would be cheaper to have a military

Plus think of the moral intangible cost if we don't care about our descendants!

 

[westwall]

Went through them. Wake me up when someone can actually dispute climate science

Wake us up when climate science can dispute historical fact.

That's how the scientific method works.

YOU make the extraordinary claim, YOU must back it up.

To date you have not.

 

[BackAgain]

If  it was wrong

I am trying to save you money if you count your descendants.

Any properly reckoned money and it would be cheaper to fight climate change, just like it would be cheaper to have a military

You assume that climate change has fuckall to do with humanity’s actions.

We already know that some state actors are indeed dangerous and aggressive.

 

[catatomic]

Wake us up when climate science can dispute historical fact.

That's how the scientific method works.

YOU make the extraordinary claim, YOU must back it up.

To date you have not.

I've read hundreds of scientific papers, A dozen books, countless websites. Master in math with differential equations.

In the scientific community and almost every serious organization it's established, the burden is on you.

The biosphere is one of the most complicated things on earth, so naturally I can't start from scratch. But some AI can go from scratch and you can challenge its findings.

 

[wist43]

Went through them. Wake me up when someone can actually dispute climate science

There are thousands of atmospheric scientists worldwide that agree that anthropogenic CO2 is not driving climate, nor is it an existential threat.

Your problem is that when presented with the actual scientific facts, you refuse to look at the information provided to you. In short, you are dishonest.

These are the scientific facts that refute your claims.

 

[catatomic]

There are thousands of atmospheric scientists worldwide that agree that anthropogenic CO2 is not driving climate, nor is it an existential threat.

Your problem is that when presented with the actual scientific facts, you refuse to look at the information provided to you. In short, you are dishonest.

These are the scientific facts that refute your claims.

1%. Now let them fight and see what happens, but there's not a smoking gun; we'd all know