macdoc wrote: ↑Thu Oct 24, 2024 6:27 pm
Why repeat your doom and gloom prognostications without offering any solution. Gets old.
...
I'm quoting an article which reports on what UNFCCC scientists have said today in a press release. Take it up with them. And besides, I have offered solutions over in the climate science thread - many times in fact. I just don't think you ever read those posts - probably too long and challenging for you, eh?
macdoc wrote: ↑Thu Oct 24, 2024 6:27 pm
1.5 is long past and 2.0 is near term....reality is effective
carbon capture /sequestration is required...not international agency nattering about unenforceable commitments.
You need to have a good hard think about what makes something an "unenforceable commitment", and why - and probably examine why you're now pretty keen to dismiss what UN scientists are saying about exceeding
planetary boundaries, concerns about
tipping points, the impacts of
biodiversity loss,
global mean temps, and the impacts thereof that will fall disproportionately harder on those
least responsible. Perhaps you think you're being 'pragmatic', or something?
macdoc wrote: ↑Thu Oct 24, 2024 6:27 pm
This post addresses News and Technology ....not doomsaying as you are wont to offer.
Any maybe you need to recognise that 2-3°C above pre-industrial is effectively doomsday for our economies, our societies, and our ways of living.
You've said the same thing about Small Modular Reactors, Solar Radiation Management, Carbon Capture and Storage, Liquid Hydrogen, high-albedo paint, and fusion power in the past. The tech isn't the issue here - and I think you know it.