ANS -- Comment on climate crisis by Brad Hicks

Brad hicks posted this comment before this article.

Brad Hicks

12h  · 

There's a fact that I don't think has registered with enough people.

Every climate-change forecast has come with a range of predictions that say, in effect, "if the CO2 level in the atmosphere reaches x level, it will be at least (however bad), it will likely be (much worse), and could theoretically be (even worse than that)." A range of forecasts from most-optimistic assumptions to most-pessimistic assumptions, if you will.

And for as long as they've been making these predictions, when we actually hit the designated CO2 levels? The most-pessimistic predictions have been shockingly optimistic.

Scientists admitted to some slack in their predictions because they admitted that there were variables they couldn't account for, feedback loops that could make things better or could make things worse. It turns out that none of the ones they were hoping would make things better came true. All of the ones they thought would make things worse did. And many turned out to be even worse than the worst-case predictions.

Politicians are playing "politics is the art of the possible" (look up the origin of THAT phrase some time, will you) games regarding de-carbonization, but the fact of the matter is that we are, for all practical purposes, out of dithering time, out of discussion time, out of compromise time. We either get serious about fixing this THIS YEAR or we write off huge chunks of the planet as uninhabitable. Huge heavily-populated chunks.

Because on this subject, the news has never been better than we hoped. It has consistently been worse than we feared.

https://gizmodo.com/i-suspect-it-will-get-a-lot-worse-firestorm-in-british-1847213731?utm_campaign=io9&utm_content=&utm_medium=SocialMarketing&utm_source=facebook&fbclid=IwAR00hfbZSg029b1dWAPgQOxtZ1iW8BQ5yb9t13YjShEwmR0xyIjuM2wUUjc