Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Environment & Energy

muriel_volestrangler

(101,316 posts)

7. The excerpt specifically talks about the climate niche for humans

Reply to denem (Reply #2)

Tue May 5, 2020, 10:38 AM

May 2020

which is only in the right-most pixel width of your graph, so your graph is a red herring.

"No mitigation" is not "counter factual"; it's about the future, whereas a counterfactual is about a different version of the present. It'd be nice to think there'll be some greenhouse gas mitigation in the future, but it's by no means inevitable. You appear to be saying "I daren't think about what would happen if people like Trump continued in power, so I'll tell everyone else they mustn't talk about what a disaster it would be".

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

17 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Study Worst Case: 1/3 Of Humans Will Face Heat Matching/Exceeding The Sahara w/i 50 Years [View all] hatrack May 2020 OP

I couldn't find 2050 in the article anywhere ... progree May 2020 #1

NYT On Same Story - A Bit More Clearly Laid Out To Your Points hatrack May 2020 #3

Don't see anything here supporting your OP's title here either. You might want to get rid of the progree May 2020 #4

Gah - more coffee! hatrack May 2020 #5

It happens 😂 Thanks much for fixing 😂😂😂 n/t progree May 2020 #6

Bonkers. denem May 2020 #2

The excerpt specifically talks about the climate niche for humans muriel_volestrangler May 2020 #7

It assumes desertification denem May 2020 #8

No, it does *NOT* assume desertification muriel_volestrangler May 2020 #9

Yes it assumes desertification. denem May 2020 #10

Show me where it assumes desertification (nt) muriel_volestrangler May 2020 #11

It is implicit. denem May 2020 #12

Bwahahah. Your "ignore what the climate science says, *I* know we'll be all right" muriel_volestrangler May 2020 #13

Ad hominem denem May 2020 #14

No. That wasn't an "ad hominem". An "ad hominem" is an argument saying that the person muriel_volestrangler May 2020 #15

Really? Because plenty of areas have started to hit those temps today NickB79 May 2020 #16

climate vs weather denem May 2020 #17