humus wrote:Hello Mr Duplice,
You are now clearly displayed negationist, on the effects at least.
it's extraordinary that you call me a negationist while I quote respectable climatologists, member of the IPCC (Wigley and Emanuel) who just say that catastrophist speeches go too far !!
do you believe the scientists or the media?
So yes, today the extravagant climate is currently bearable, especially when strangers from Reims are flooded and permanently close their businesses, when Australian forests are burning etc.
This taste does not bother me!
except that you have no element to affirm that these events would not have taken place without the RC, and even less that they will disappear if we stop producing CO2. These events have ALWAYS existed, and they will ALWAYS exist - and no, to anticipate your answer, there is no evidence that they are more numerous because of CR.
The main part of the problems comes from the artificialization of the grounds for the floods, and of the construction of more and more numerous dwellings in the middle of the forests, which increase both the risk of fire and their consequences.
Whatever the emission scenario chosen, global warming is launched for the next 20 years.
To continue with coal is to put tokens back into the climate machine. Mr Duplice is a casino player.
The article reasons all other things being equal and does not take into account the depletions that will cut us off from the means of action to support an increasingly hot and extravagant climate.
Always so inconsistent and irresponsible, Mr. Duplice.
"you might be better in 2070" it can make sense. What seriousness can you expect from a casino player.
I said nothing about coal, you are responding to your imaginary ghosts, I quoted words from climatologists of the IPCC, who say that there is no extinction of humanity or collapse of society because of RC to fear, and you do not answer it. You only feed yourself to the media discourse that you drink in a loop.