
The world’s climate goals are not sufficient. They are also unlikely to be met - pseudolus
https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2019/11/20/the-worlds-climate-goals-are-not-sufficient-they-are-also-unlikely-to-be-met
======
CalRobert
We seem to be tracking for 4C of warming.

4C of warming would probably cause a collapse in the ability to feed the
populace, and render large chunks of the world uninhabitable without active
cooling, or because they'll be underwater.

It's hard to imagine how civilization survives this, without those regions
that do continue to have arable land putting up walls and turrets and mowing
down the streams of starving migrants.

At what point do you look at preppers and think "honestly they might be on to
something?"

(edit: additions below) Sources abound but
[https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/may/18/climate-...](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/may/18/climate-
crisis-heat-is-on-global-heating-four-degrees-2100-change-way-we-live)

"Indeed, the consequences of a 4C warmer world are so terrifying that most
scientists would rather not contemplate them, let alone work out a survival
strategy.

Rockström doesn’t like our chances. “It’s difficult to see how we could
accommodate a billion people or even half of that,” he says. “There will be a
rich minority of people who survive with modern lifestyles, no doubt, but it
will be a turbulent, conflict-ridden world.” "

"Since 2005, total global greenhouse-gas emissions have most closely tracked
the RCP 8.5 scenario, "

[https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2019/01/rcp-85-t...](https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2019/01/rcp-85-the-
climate-change-disaster-scenario/579700/)

~~~
NeedMoreTea
What many seem to forget is 2C or 4C of warming is not an end equilibrium
state, it's merely an arbitrary date of measurement (end of 21st century) for
the track we may irreparably lock in for centuries and millennia. One a
tipping point tips it's damn near impossible to tip it back.

That seems more than a little cavalier given the limited range of regions we
find our planet's landmass in. The future looks more and more terrifying, and
despite public opinion supporting action in much the world, _still_ the
political class have little to no answer anywhere...

~~~
archi42
Well, the answers won't get you (re-)elected:

* Subsidize public transportation (maybe even 100%), and make it a feasible mode of transportation for as many people as possible (at least for daily commutes; bonus: many people are concentrated in cities, so start there).

* Regarding daily driving: If public transportation is a feasible alternative, punish those who still use their car for commuting.

* Massively increase taxes on all kinds of fossil fuels; no matter if used for driving or for electricity (initially ease this in regions with difficult/bad public transportation).

* Make it easier to build regenerative energies (e.g. solar and wind) plus storage systems (e.g. pumped water or battery).

* I'm personally undecided on nuclear fission, but compared to coal it could be the lesser of two evils?

* On the packaging of any product (from bottled water over electronics to toothpaste) print the amount of energy used in production and for transportation.

* Punish producers of goods that break early (e.g. define minimum durability requirements for various product groups).

Would you elect someone with this agenda? I would have a hard time, though I
think these points could all be appropriate responses to the climate crisis.

Even better: Try to get elected with that ;-)

~~~
SlowRobotAhead
More taxes, less freedom, more punishments. Yes, I believe this would be
unpopular.

However, remind me while you are punishing people for driving cars, how is the
public transit outside major urban areas? Have you been outside urban areas?

~~~
Angostura
> Yes, I believe this would be unpopular.

As indeed is the idea of your grand children living in a post-civilisation
world

~~~
colejohnson66
OP never said the whole platform was bad. Just that public transport doesn’t
work in certain areas. Especially less dense ones.

------
danzig13
The article points out subsidies are one of the main contributors to growth in
production of fossil fuels. So forget regulation, just take the government
thumb off the scale in favor of fossil fuels.

This is somewhat disingenuous on my part as I am for using the government
thumb if necessary to achieve goals that allow society to continue like a
clean energy mix. However, maybe this could still be done in a light touch way
like massive grants into basic research which I do think the US government has
had success with in the past.

Fossil fuel could take part in this as well but from my perspective, they have
never been interested in pursuing goals like efficiency and sustainability
though innovation. They are driven by finding ways to create more demand for
energy use and scaling up existing technology that is good enough for that
purpose.

~~~
ZeroGravitas
The problem with this is that you suddenly find that all the people who you
thought were arguing in good faith about not liking government intervention,
were actually only doing that as a tactic to stall specific things they didn't
like, not as a general principle.

They'll have a completely new set of disingenuous talking points (unsubsidized
fuel would hit the poorest hardest!) ready to confuse people and to stall that
action as well.

~~~
DuskStar
> They'll have a completely new set of disingenuous talking points
> (unsubsidized fuel would hit the poorest hardest!) ready to confuse people
> and to stall that action as well.

Wasn't that literally the left's argument against carbon taxes on Oregon?

~~~
ZeroGravitas
If they argued for some counterbalancing arrangement with the money raised
they were probably on the left if they just said "well, I guess we just have
to stick with what we currently do, it's not like government intervention
would be desirable here" then they were probably not actually on the left.

~~~
DuskStar
The initial proposal was for the carbon tax to be revenue-neutral and (IIRC)
returned as a per-capita rebate. That didn't pass, so the followup used the
revenue for social programs as an attempt at bipartisanship. The followup also
failed to pass, though.

------
mywacaday
How can they possibly be met when China is build building new coal fired power
plants equivalent to all the coal plants in europe.

[https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/nov/20/china-
appetite...](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/nov/20/china-appetite-for-
coal-power-stations-returns-despite-climate-pledge-capacity)

~~~
JoeSamoa
Yep. This is the point I've been trying to make to many Americans.

This issue goes beyond our consumption. The entire worlds growth has to be
regulated at this point to ensure stability.

That means Western countries need to accept a lower standard of living or find
ways to become vastly more efficient so that developing nations can catch up
and we can find an equilibrium in regards to standard of living globally.

~~~
growlist
> Western countries

This West/rest dichotomy seems a bit outdated. Is China the West? oil-rich
Middle East? Both of those have high emissions per capita - in the case of the
Middle East, some of the highest in the world.

~~~
JoeSamoa
China is especially not the west. They would typically be the East.

Mostly I meant developed vs undeveloped. Those are Eastern countries who are
still developing. I think the dichotomy fits just fine still.

~~~
growlist
Well then, here's another reason it's false: there is huge variation within
the West, with the US for example having more than twice as much co2 emissions
per capita as the UK.

------
bamboozled
Honestly, take a look at what’s happening in Australia right now, it’s
absolutely astounding how apocalyptic things are looking there. What’s more
amazing is the Australian Government is still in the business of climate
emergency denial.

I’m really worried about certain communities and cities making it through the
summer down there. It will be California In the same situation again soon.

~~~
mrfusion
> it’s absolutely astounding how apocalyptic things are looking there

The breakdown of society? Unable to acquire basic goods? Roving gangs of
marauders?

~~~
shakna
The worst bushfires in recorded history, earlier and longer bushfire seasons,
ongoing problems to do with poor water management that are being exacerbated,
ongoing drought problems that are being exacerbated, ongoing power problems
that are being exacerbated, ongoing skin cancer problems that are being
exacerbated.

This is death by a thousand cuts. Civilisation doesn't end immediately once we
hit our tipping point date - but damage to our environment becomes practically
irreversible.

~~~
0xffff2
All of that is _bad_ , but it hardly sounds apocalyptic. I don't doubt that
we're going to get there, but until we see whole cities abandoned, people
starving en mass, and similar events, calling things "apocalyptic" comes
across as hyperbolic.

~~~
shakna
The damage will be irreversible by the time these events are seen.

It gets called apocalyptic because we're heading to a future where they become
inevitable, not that they exist today.

You need to get out of the car before the car crashes into a giant ball of
flame. But saying that it hasn't exploded yet isn't an argument that there
won't be flames.

~~~
0xffff2
The damage is irreversible now, as evidenced by the fact that we are doing
virtually nothing at a global level to even slow down, much less reverse, the
damage.

That still doesn't make current events apocalyptic. Harbingers of the
apocalypse maybe, but the apocalypse is the fireball. It's not apocalyptic
until we crash.

------
pimterry
It's not a perfect solution, but you can make a big dent in this yourself
remarkably easily by carbon offsetting all your own emissions right now:
[https://www.goclimateneutral.org/](https://www.goclimateneutral.org/)

Reducing your emissions completely is difficult. As others here have said,
there are many emissions you can't practically reduce yourself, from concrete
production to necessary transportation. Even where you can't reduce your
personal impact though, you can reduce worldwide carbon output by an
equivalent amount instead, by offsetting: directly donating to equivalent
reductions elsewhere in the world that just need funding.

There's other providers too (e.g.
[https://offset.earth/](https://offset.earth/)), the only trick is to find
somewhere that's cheap per-tonne offset (you should be able to do it for
around $4 per tonne), with projects that are vetted & certified. Some more
details & links to the kind of projects that offsetting funds here:
[https://www.goclimateneutral.org/our_projects](https://www.goclimateneutral.org/our_projects).

~~~
0xffff2
>you can make a big dent

How so? Practically by definition you personally can make an almost
incomprehensibly minuscule dent. This is not an issue that is going to be
solved by personal action.

~~~
pimterry
Proportional to other possible personal actions you can take, I mean.

It's easy & fairly affordable for example to offset 10x your own personal
emissions. For an average person in the US that would cost about $70 a month
(about 20 tonnes/year * $4/tonne * 10 = $800/year). Meanwhile it's clearly
impossible to 1000% reduce your personal emissions, no matter the sacrifices.

Completely agree we need large-scale action from nations & corporations too,
but if you're looking for a way you can make a difference right now then
offsetting is one of your most direct & effective options.

~~~
0xffff2
A large part of the reason we're talking about this is that "possible personal
actions you can take" are utterly and completely irrelevant to a problem of
this scale. It's actively harmful to talk about personal action in a way that
implies it makes a meaningful difference.

~~~
pimterry
This argument also applies to protesting or voting - one protestor/voter alone
makes no difference - or almost any possible attempt at a solution. What's the
alternative?

One person voting or acting makes only a small difference, but doing so as one
of many eventually has an effect. Corporations and governments will move only
because of the cumulative economic and democratic incentives from many many
personal actions.

------
adrianN
Fridays For Future's next global climate strike is on the 29th, next week.
There is probably some demo in your city that you could join.

~~~
ptah
it's a bit late, these protests should have taken place 20 years ago. all we
can do now is prep

~~~
bryanlarsen
It's not a binary choice. The less we do to combat it, the warmer it gets.
We're not going to get 0, but it'd be nice to avoid 8 degrees of warming...

~~~
ptah
protests do not "combat it". actual action to cut co2 emissions "combat it"

~~~
imtringued
Cutting CO2 emissions is the trivial part. Convincing politicians to cut CO2
emissions is almost insurmountable.

------
thdrdt
There is a lot of talk about renewable energy. But I believe this is
distracting us from the real issue: we are using too many resourses.

Our family uses around 2000kWh electricity per year. This is half of what most
people in my country use. And ~16% of the avarage US usage.

Ofcourse there are a lot of reasons for the differences but the biggest reason
is being consumption aware.

We don't own an AC, use LED lights everywhere, and always check the power
consumption of appliances we buy.

Being aware of your consumptions really helps.

Paving your roof with solar panels will only help the producer of the panels,
not your carbon footprint.

~~~
Dumblydorr
Personal choice is only about 5% of the change needed to mitigate climate
change. Individuals can not choose most things, such as steel and cement and
plastic production, they can't enact a carbon tax, they can't close down coal
plants or raise capital for nuclear or renewables. Can individuals educate
millions of women in the third world or change how refrigerants are managed?
Look at drawdown.org, you will see the majority of reductions will be on
elected officials and corporations.

The most developed world individuals can do, as you say, is reduce their own
footprint in minimal ways and VOTE!!

~~~
seminatl
This does not really apply to individual _Americans_. The American carbon
footprint boils down to driving and meat. Individual decisions made by super-
consumers can be impactful.

~~~
WhompingWindows
You're still not correct...you're saying eating plant based diet has
essentially zero footprint, which is untrue, especially with food waste. And
you're saying driving/transportation choice alone is sufficient, when we know
that even if they bought an EV or used a train, those transportation regimes
still incur carbon emissions in their production and operation, though
admittedly less LOCAL emissions (great!) and potential for lower future
emissions as the grid cleans up (great!).

These individuals still can not choose zero-carbon heating/cooling (which is
probably 1/3 of American's footprint, which you neglected to even mention),
they can't choose how their infrastructure is produced (steel and cement, big
time emissions there), they can't choose the actions of their American
government, which spends a lot of carbon emissions on its internal activities
as well as its foreign incursions.

So no, you really can't "boil down" to zero net emissions as an American
unless you stop using heating, cooling, roads, transportation of any kind
except walking/bikes, and if you completely stop supporting the US govt and
its activities.

------
tim333
We need a way to incentivize countries to take action and bring in carbon
pricing and the like.

About the only way I can think of would be a new global trade agreement.
Something like meet your carbon targets and get free trade with all other
members, don't and face 30% tariffs. If you could get say the US and EU on
board pretty much all countries would be forced to follow.

That plus say a $100 carbon price might pretty much fix things for the output
drops suggested in the article and not hurt the economy much.

~~~
0xffff2
The trouble is, this isn't nearly far enough and it's already sounding
politically impossible. The carbon targets need to be zero worldwide without
exception and the tariffs need to be more like 1000%.

------
carapace
A very interesting and informative talk: Dr. Gwynne Dyer – Geopolitics in a
Hotter World – UBC Talk Transcribed (Sept. 2010)

[https://spaswell.wordpress.com/2016/11/18/dr-gwynne-dyer-
geo...](https://spaswell.wordpress.com/2016/11/18/dr-gwynne-dyer-geopolitics-
in-a-hotter-world-ubc-talk-transcribed-sept-2010/)

\- - - -

important to remember that our current systems (no pun intended) are hugely
wasteful. I forget the exact statistic but losses from the point of generation
to your wall socket are something crazy, like 30%-50%. That's not including
lunacy like refrigerators that open like cabinets rather than drawers
(spilling all the cold air on the floor and filling the box with warm air.
Some fridges have _heaters_ in the door. It's true.) or pilot lights (little
flames that burn 24/7 just in case you might want to cook at midnight or
whatever.)

 _Efficiency_ would solve about half of the problem, in re: energy.

~~~
Pete_D
> Some fridges have heaters in the door. It's true.

Wow. I had to search this to be sure you weren't kidding:

> In ‘single circuit appliances’ and appliances with a 4-star freezer
> compartment, temperatures are usually regulated according to refrigeration
> compartment temperature. When ambient temperatures fall, an issue arises
> because the refrigeration compartment will not need to be cooled as
> regularly and this means that the associated 4-star freezer compartment can
> then become too warm. In such cases, the refrigeration compartment is
> artificially heated by a light bulb or an electrical heater to force the
> refrigerator to cool down more frequently and thus keep the 4-star freezer
> compartment sufficiently cool.

[https://blog.liebherr.com/appliances/my/refrigerators-
heater...](https://blog.liebherr.com/appliances/my/refrigerators-heaters/)

~~~
carapace
Oh my, you've found some _other_ heater!

The ones I was talking about are in the rim gasket thingy that seals the door
when it's closed. Some refrigerators have heating elements in there to keep
the gasket (or whatever you call it) from sticking to the frame when opening
the door, IIRC.

------
johnmorrison
While predicting the climate is hard, predicting humans is even harder. The
notion that we are inevitably on the way to 4C of warming (or whatever other
figure somebody would have you believe) is frankly outright wrong.

We can reach net zero greenhouse gas emissions through profitable enterprise
and without lowering quality of life / stopping economic growth / enforcing
strict veganism or whatever else extremists propose. In fact, we can do so far
ahead of the IPCC SR15 1.5C scenario requirements. How?

Firstly, don't disregard technologies without understanding their merit.
Hydrocarbons are a big part of the problem, yes, but please note that natural
gas is about 4x cleaner than coal and has actually been _the largest_
contribution to lowering emissions in the energy sector (~75% natural gas
reduction on a large chunk of energy consumption is far more significant than
the ~95% renewable reduction on a much smaller portion of energy consumption
thus far)

Our world relies on these technologies at the moment and a good climate change
solution must include not only a smooth transition away from fossil fuels but
also an increase in fossil fuel cleanliness.

Now, climate change is primarily driven by net emissions from 6 things:

\- Energy (electricity, fuels, heat etc.)

\- Transportation (cars, planes, boats etc.)

\- Industry (steel, concrete, plastic etc.)

\- Commercial (buildings, appliances, etc.)

\- Agriculture (mostly beef, other meats, etc.)

\- Carbon sequestration (deforestation, other tech)

Here's how we can solve the problem in all of these areas in a mutually
beneficial, profitable way:

1\. Nuclear fission is currently the cleanest, safest, and most fuel abundant
energy source we have. Most people don't know this. It is also only at a very
small fraction of its potential in efficiency and relies on the least common
nuclear fuel of the 3 naturally occurring isotopes (U235 vs. Th232, U238)

With some relatively small investment in this space, we can both increase the
world's total energy supply by several factors in order to accommodate growth
in developing nations and decrease energy sector emissions by >99%, over the
course of a few decades.

We can also provide enough cheap electricity to help with the other 5 areas:

2\. Electric cars are physically more efficient, faster, and simpler than ICE
cars. Same concept applies long term to all transport with the exception of
orbital rockets (those which operate in a vacuum), and it is entirely possible
that we can shift the entire transportation industry to a mix of (a) fully
electric transport and (b) carbon-neutral fuels derived from sequestration
techniques, all within a few decades.

3\. High grade heat allows us to shift the emissions of steel manufacturing
from the plant itself to the energy source. New nuclear fission technologies
operating >600 degrees Celsius will allow us to shift the steel industry to
net-zero emissions. Bill Gates recently also posted some notes about green
concrete [https://www.gatesnotes.com/Energy/Buildings-are-good-for-
peo...](https://www.gatesnotes.com/Energy/Buildings-are-good-for-people-and-
bad-for-the-climate)

Also, cross laminated timber offers a new technology that can be made
stronger, cheaper, safer, and more psychologically beneficial than steel and
concrete in most buildings, including skyscrapers. This and other biological
materials science solutions can help shift away from steel, concrete, and
plastic production.

4\. Same concept from transportation applies here. Electric things are more
efficient and will be cheaper long term across the board, and allow us to
shift emissions to the energy sector (which is by far the easiest to reduce
emissions in)

5\. Agriculture is complicated, and feeding 10 billion people will be hard.
But there are a lot of great options and innovations here as well. Indoor
farming can be made significantly more reliable, productive, and efficient
than regular farming if we have good access to electricity and water. Lab-
grown meats, cultural shifts to vegetarianism/veganism, and alternative
protein sources all offer options to reduce agricultural emissions by >95%.

6\. There are many great companies working on sequestration technologies, and
several of these not only remove greenhouse gas from the atmosphere but also
provide useful byproducts like clean hydrocarbon fuels. YC has recently funded
such companies.

The technological shifts I proposed in sections 4 and 5 will allow us (and/or
force us) to start fixing our land and replanting healthy forests.

Every single one of these solutions can realistically be widely implemented by
the year 2040/2050, and if we really wanted to (although this is not realistic
from a societal perspective) we could really get there by 2030. Every single
one of these solutions can improve quality of life and support a growing
global economy in a profitable way.

I believe we are going to reach net-zero emissions a lot faster than you might
expect.

Please, don't fall for the fear mongering. (and obviously, also don't fall for
denialism)

Climate change is real, but it is something we can solve, and we don't have to
destroy society or adopt a political extreme across the board to do it. I've
got hope for humanity, I hope you do too.

~~~
carapace
Granted that the technology is feasible (and, FWIW, I believe it) how to
address the political/social side of it to actually "get 'er done!"?

Technically, your stance or proposals are a political extreme, eh?

\- - - -

FWIW, and apologies if this seems way out of left field, there is a kind of
psychological algorithm called "Core Transformation Process". It operates
between a guide and a single subject, in a therapeutic setting, to resolve and
transform personal issues. Now I suspect, although I haven't tried it, that a
variation designed to work with two subjects simultaneously (or alternating,
or something) could work really well as a kind of negotiation or conflict-
resolution process.

The thing is, something like that is even further out sociopolitically than
your technology-saves-the-day proposals (which, again, I am all in favor of,
FWIW.)

~~~
johnmorrison
> how to address the political/social side of it to actually "get 'er done!"?

While it will definitely happen faster with government effort, the main point
of my comment was that we can do all of these things in the free market.

In fact, we already are well on our way to doing all these things in the free
market.

So, I wouldn't consider this a political extreme. My policy is simply to allow
entrepreneurs to acquire private funding and test out their ideas. We already
do that.

> ... "Core Transformation Process" ...

This is an interesting idea, I do think it is a fairly difficult issue to
figure out how we can make meaningful political progress in today's world. It
seems like the gears of democracy are slowing down more and more every year.

------
Gys
[https://outline.com/YrcHDr](https://outline.com/YrcHDr)

------
austinwm
For those interested in MUCH more detail (without a paywall), you can find the
original UNEP Production Gap Report here - it's 80 pages instead of 5
paragraphs.

[https://www.unenvironment.org/resources/report/production-
ga...](https://www.unenvironment.org/resources/report/production-gap-
report-2019)

------
mrfusion
I just sold my ground level condo in nyc for pennies on the dollar. Rushing to
get out before we’re underwater.

------
NoblePublius
Climate change will make new jobs we haven’t even imagined yet. Chill, people.

~~~
makerofspoons
It's not about the jobs, it's about our continued ability to grow food and
maintain a relatively peaceful world order.

~~~
NoblePublius
Siberia is gonna be a great place to grow food after the climate changes.

------
LessDmesg
Insufficient, will never be met, and who cares. Humans don't affect climate
anyway.

------
macinjosh
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.

A computer climate model cannot predict the future. Believing so is magical
thinking and clearly unscientific by definition.

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.

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's control over everyone's
lives. If you don'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.

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.

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.

~~~
madhadron
> Since when did science become about predicting what will happen in the
> future?

Since evidence based policy making became a thing. We use it for deciding when
to plant crops, deciding what medical treatments should be broadly
implemented, deciding what water treatment methods are acceptable...it's
fairly popular.

> That concept is completely antithetical to what science is at the core (i.e.
> making repeatable observations to establish fact).

Either what you have established holds repeatably and you are predicting the
future, or it doesn't hold repeatably and it's not, by your definition,
science. You may be confusing repeatable experiments with repeatable
observations, though.

> 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

At this point the observations are enough where it's an absolute fact. The
only question is how much, how fast. That's what the computer modeling is
trying to get a handle on.

Plus, your argument is equivalent to playing Russian roulette and claiming
that the presence of a bullet somewhere in the gun is not an established fact.
That's true. You don't know if it might be loaded. But do you really want to
find out?

~~~
macinjosh
> Since evidence based policy making became a thing. We use it for deciding
> when to plant crops, deciding what medical treatments should be broadly
> implemented, deciding what water treatment methods are acceptable...it's
> fairly popular.

Thanks for the smug talking down to. :) However your comparison here is
ridiculous. We can easily measure crop out comes, water treatment outcomes,
and medical outcomes because in the past actual experiments were done that
showed what worked and didn't in that situation.

The climate on the other hand is completely different. We don't have a second
one to use as a control. The scale is too large to fully factor in all inputs
and outputs. It is just not the same at all as the things you mention.

> Plus, your argument is equivalent to playing Russian roulette and claiming
> that the presence of a bullet somewhere in the gun is not an established
> fact.

I am not the type to choose security over giving up the personal freedoms and
rights of myself and my fellow humans just in case someone's computer model
turns out to be accurate.

In any case, your analogy is actually very poor. You can check and be 100%
sure if a gun is loaded. You can't check what will happen to the climate in 50
years because it hasn't happened and we don't currently have the knowledge or
capability to truly required to truly know what will happen with the climate.

~~~
madhadron
> Thanks for the smug talking down to. :)

Absolutely. There's a lot of people who don't understand how science works
outside of a parochial impression from physics, and if I can't get some
pleasure from dealing with it, then why bother?

> We don't have a second one to use as a control.

Like all observational sciences, basically.

> In any case, your analogy is actually very poor. You can check and be 100%
> sure if a gun is loaded.

All analogies can be strained out of usefulness.

> You can't check what will happen to the climate in 50 years because it
> hasn't happened

We already did. We're fifty years in and seeing the effects.

