
Scientists Dispute 2-Degree Model Guiding Climate Talks (via wsj.com) - raspasov
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjan4qah7fJAhWDnYgKHd3nCrgQqQIIHjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.wsj.com%2Farticles%2Fscientists-dispute-2-degree-model-guiding-climate-talks-1448829047&usg=AFQjCNHN1-9eRAxq4DzR-OfWVxVnGSLUeA&sig2=A5kbcG9HD6H3a8jDJeHW0g&bvm=bv.108194040,d.cGU
======
Daishiman
Let's start things off on the proper foot, scientifically:

Even if we stopped all CO2 emissions today, the world is very likely to hit
significant tipping points already, unless you're the sort of person who
doesn't consider the disintegration of the Larsen B ice shelf, the massive
Greenland glacier melts, and the increase of Siberian methane emissions (that
lovely, pants-shitting and realistic close-range extinction scenario) to be
"tipping points".

The only way this plays out is that the less damage you do, the easier it will
be future generations to stabilize the situation through proper technology and
policy (or you think people will just idly accept 500 years from now that the
actions of today will lead to their demise?).

So models have curves where depending on the different scenarios, the amount
of damage varies. Since this is a continuum of environmental effects, not
discrete points, picking a single point as a goal is a mix of what you can do
realistically and the amount of political buy-in we can get about how much
guilt we can take for fucking things up, plus/minus the inherent uncertainty
in any model.

So yeah, you can say that it's arbitrary about as much as a recommended
dietary intake is arbitrary, or a recommended maximum radiation dosage is
arbitrary, or the number of minutes of exercise per day is arbitrary.

This is a great example on how to turn a one-paragraph response into a two-
page fluff article.

------
themartorana
_" Still, many scientists back the goal because they see it as giving policy
makers a clear-cut target to shoot at in the fight against global warming."_

When your options are nuance or action, sometimes action.

Remember your audience.

------
jrk
I clearly should have known, but: oh my god the comments section…

------
NickHaflinger
“It emerged from a political agenda, not a scientific analysis” Yes it is
patently obvious there are powerful wealthy backers behind the Global Warming
hoax :)

------
vixen99
Scientists can dispute all they like: nothing will happen.

Whatever your views on global warming, it is simply a fact that people in the
developing world want to enjoy the standard of living experienced by the
developed world and that means much increased energy consumption. The latter
will not be met in any very significant way by windmills or solar panels.

