Quote Originally Posted by Ker_Thwap View Post
I know you didn't, you just posted a general principle without commentary. That's why I went with my funny reply. I hate it when I have to explain my funnies.

I'm also not suggesting the species will survive when the sun begins it's progression to a red dwarf, nor a half million degree sudden temperature change from a particularly pesky nuclear bomb. Somewhere between the 1/2 degree change and these extreme examples, we'll cope.
The report addresses this question, and the somewhere is not as far from the 1/2 degree as you seem to believe.
The more interesting questions to me, are more a combination of science, sociology and ethics. Just because mankind can survive something, doesn't mean it will be fun to do so. Look at the smog in China, that's got to suck to live in. Is the larger concern the immediate death of Chinese citizens by breathing, or the possible long term affect of that smog on the world climate? Do we, as concerned world citizens get a say in how that developing country chooses to behave, after we've already gone through our smoggy industrial revolution ourselves? Is it enough to give them friendly advice on how to better the environment, or should we bomb them into oblivion to keep them from ever polluting again? Maybe somewhere in the middle?
They are certainly more interesting, because they are actually questions and not settled matters. I would say that they are certainly less relevant, though, because we can't talk about solutions until we agree there's a problem.