Quote:
Originally Posted by redpoint5
Existential issue is a matter of opinion. The IPCC researchers themselves don't use that language.
|
Scientists who contribute to the literature could / might/ may/ would use it.
Those at the IPCC, who accept materials for consideration in the reports may be instructed to use no language which could spook the marketplace, even if it's personally spooky.
Since science strives for precision, when you find a scientists using a term like existential, you might presume that, out all adjectives available to them, existential was the most precise descriptor available.
From my reading of the science, I'm left in agreement that, climate change truly is an existential threat.
It's the non-linearity that's the problem. It's just like aerodynamic horsepower.
It doesn't follow a straight line, it's geometric.
Nothing on Earth evolved within a geometrically- warming environment.
You cannot light a fire as big as the entire surface of Earth ( oceans included ) and expect zero consequences. And we're burning 1.6-Earths / year.
Perhaps some thought powerful words like 'existential' could motivate people to introspect, and maybe alter their behavior. It appears that nothing can be said to some which would ever make a difference.
Madison Avenue and a few others know all about it.