Jeezus. You’re really trying to argue semantics instead of defending your position? You know “AR6” stands for “sixth assessment report,” right? They accumulated a bunch of papers, and made…a report on the findings.
But since you’re clearly so much smarter than everyone and read so much more than us, why don’t you enlighten us all on these brand new findings that you know everything about? Did they or did they not find that human emissions are causing increasingly dangerous conditions? So please, pass your infinite wisdom to us peons. Grace us with your genius! Because you seem to be implying that they didn’t—more than that, you’re straight up claiming that they didn’t. Are you sure you read it?
lol and yet you refuse to expand on it. I’m really starting to believe you’ve never read it.
Here’s the synthesis:
Human activities, principally through emissions of greenhouse gases, have unequivocally caused global warming, with global surface temperature reaching 1.1°C above 1850–1900 in 2011–2020. Global greenhouse gas emissions have continued to increase, with unequal historical and ongoing contributions arising from unsustainable energy use, land use and land-use change, lifestyles and patterns of consumption and production across regions, between and within countries, and among individuals."
“Continued greenhouse gas emissions will lead to increasing global warming, with the best estimate of reaching 1.5°C in the near term in considered scenarios and modelled pathways. Every increment of global warming will intensify multiple and concurrent hazards (high confidence). Deep, rapid, and sustained reductions in greenhouse gas emissions would lead to a discernible slowdown in global warming within around two decades, and also to discernible changes in atmospheric composition within a few years (high confidence).”
“Climate change is a threat to human well-being and planetary health (very high confidence). There is a rapidly closing window of opportunity to secure a liveable and sustainable future for all (very high confidence).”
Note that last bullet point. The words may be different, but trying to tell me that human caused climate change is not an active and increasing threat to human life is beyond absurd. “There is a rapidly closing window of opportunity to secure a liveable…future.”
Do you know what they’re saying? Why are you trying to dampen the reality of the threat or continued emissions? Are you literally just some shitty shill to say we’re all fine and nothing is happening?
You’re the one that claimed stuff not supported by the IPCC reports. Now trying to pin your random hallucinations on me won’t cut it.
The world is not actively murdering us. That was your claim. If we don’t cut emissions we will get into problems with changing growing regions for crops, need to move away from current sea level infrastructure and most of all we’ll see wars raging when we don’t allow people to move with the changing climate zones due to national borders.
Try reading the appropriate Working Group section instead of the summaries. You might even learn something.
“When the world is actively murdering us, maybe we’ll finally see some positive change for a few select oppressed groups.”
This is all over an off-the-cuff joke. About how in the future, “when the world is actively murdering us” we’ll see a modicum of positive change for some groups of people.
And you’re trying to say this is not something that is increasing in likelihood because the IPCC says it’s not going to happen? Like…are you alright? You still haven’t shared a shred of data that supports your claim. Jesus, I shared more from the report than you have. And you’re like, “no. Not that part.”
Are you refering to IPCC AR6 as “one scientific paper”?
… and getting upvotes?
I mean. Peak stupidity.
Jeezus. You’re really trying to argue semantics instead of defending your position? You know “AR6” stands for “sixth assessment report,” right? They accumulated a bunch of papers, and made…a report on the findings.
But since you’re clearly so much smarter than everyone and read so much more than us, why don’t you enlighten us all on these brand new findings that you know everything about? Did they or did they not find that human emissions are causing increasingly dangerous conditions? So please, pass your infinite wisdom to us peons. Grace us with your genius! Because you seem to be implying that they didn’t—more than that, you’re straight up claiming that they didn’t. Are you sure you read it?
IPCC AR6 is the scientific consensus regarding climate science, and no, it does not support your doomism.
You’ve never read it.
lol and yet you refuse to expand on it. I’m really starting to believe you’ve never read it.
Here’s the synthesis:
Note that last bullet point. The words may be different, but trying to tell me that human caused climate change is not an active and increasing threat to human life is beyond absurd. “There is a rapidly closing window of opportunity to secure a liveable…future.”
Do you know what they’re saying? Why are you trying to dampen the reality of the threat or continued emissions? Are you literally just some shitty shill to say we’re all fine and nothing is happening?
lol
You’re the one that claimed stuff not supported by the IPCC reports. Now trying to pin your random hallucinations on me won’t cut it.
The world is not actively murdering us. That was your claim. If we don’t cut emissions we will get into problems with changing growing regions for crops, need to move away from current sea level infrastructure and most of all we’ll see wars raging when we don’t allow people to move with the changing climate zones due to national borders.
Try reading the appropriate Working Group section instead of the summaries. You might even learn something.
https://www.ipcc.ch/working-group/wg2/
This is all over an off-the-cuff joke. About how in the future, “when the world is actively murdering us” we’ll see a modicum of positive change for some groups of people.
And you’re trying to say this is not something that is increasing in likelihood because the IPCC says it’s not going to happen? Like…are you alright? You still haven’t shared a shred of data that supports your claim. Jesus, I shared more from the report than you have. And you’re like, “no. Not that part.”
lol wat
Not OP and I’ve never read it. Can you expand on the point of the paper and it’s content?