In short, we aren’t on track to an apocalyptic extinction, and the new head is concerned that rhetoric that we are is making people apathetic and paralyzes them from making beneficial actions.

He makes it clear too that this doesn’t mean things are perfectly fine. The world is becoming and will be more dangerous with respect to climate. We’re going to still have serious problems to deal with. The problems just aren’t insurmountable and extinction level.

  • @SCB
    link
    English
    51 year ago

    If that’s what you took away from my post, it’s an even better thing you’re a junior scientist and not running the IPCC.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      01 year ago

      If that’s all a Ph. D wielding senior scientist like you has to bring to the table, then it’s a good thing we don’t listen to you ivory tower dorks.

      • @SCB
        link
        English
        11 year ago

        You’re either responding to the wrong person, or a complete dipshit, and this applies to both posts you’ve made to my comments.

    • @HWK_290
      link
      English
      01 year ago

      I’m sorry, do many people dying not constitute an existential threat to all of humanity? Like, are you seriously arguing the semantics?

      All I’m saying is that a gentle hand at the wheel hasn’t worked. It isn’t working currently. What we have now is a moderate response to an existential threat. We should have done a lot more a lot sooner. I guess 2 becomes the new 1.5…then 3 becomes the new 2… And if we lose a billion or so peeps, that’s ok. Just the cost of ensuring we’re not all wringing our hands bc the head of the IPC said not to… Whew!

      And thanks for taking a dog at my credentials. I’ll have you know my h index is looking mighty fine 😘