|
What I'm bearing in mind is that nobody can understand the infinite implications of change, but that generally speaking, slower change is preferable to rapid.
I read the FAQ portion yesterday and it seems 2 degrees increase was somewhat arbitrarily chosen as a line not to cross, with a stretch goal of 1.5 degrees to leave a more comfortable buffer. We've already increased 1 of those 2 degrees in the previous 150 years.
Overall, I'd say reading the material so far has slightly increased my perception of the risk of warming. If action is to be taken, some target to aim for must be created even if it's somewhat arbitrary.
There's way too much DIE (Diversity, Inclusion, Equity) discussion in the FAQ which detracts from the credibility it's attempting to convey, but I can ignore the nonsense and accept the reasonable information. Many would be turned off and unable to take anything seriously after reading the DIE stuff though. It was a bad move on their part if the goal was to inform and persuade.
|