_Svankensen_

_Svankensen_ t1_jeapsqb wrote

Whut? I didn't say I was a climate scientist man. Those most likely studied physics. I said I am an environmental scientist. And as I said, I'm not asking you to trust me. What the other guy said is true.

>scenarios with very low and low GHG emissions and CO2 emissions declining to net zero around or after 2050, followed by varying levels of net negative CO2 emissions23 (SSP1-1.9 and SSP1-2.6), as illustrated in Figure SPM.4.

https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGI_SPM.pdf

As we all know, that is very unlikely. But hey, it's conceivable. Anyway, become an environmental activist. Don't give up. There's good reasons to fight.

2

_Svankensen_ t1_jeahaia wrote

We hit +1°C in 2017. We are above that already. So, yes, going back to +1°C would indeed be reversing it a bit. And you got shared a scenario already. "I have worked with climate scientists" is the most pathetic appeal to authority I have seen. I am an environmental scientist. It doesn't give me authority to override facts or to make shit up.

1

_Svankensen_ t1_je6v1om wrote

"Advisory opinion". And the US is the biggest responsible for climate change. And has already established precedent of passing laws that directly threaten the Hague. This is just a token of goodwill. Which isn't nothing, mind you, since international relations are slow to build trust. But I wouldn't call it a win of epic proportions.

EDIT: I seem to have offended some nationalists?

−14