I wasn't trying to debate or really even fight. It isn't really my intention when communicating to ever debate (they're useless) but to contribute to the discussion we were having. I know this is long since dead but at the end of the day, I have to have some honor about this and admit to my mistakes.

Like I said, I wanted to first apologize to you, sincerely. I think that among the confusion about what it was you were saying, and what exactly your viewpoints were, I unnecessarily railed against your post, when really my issues are my own, aimed at "internet discussion" culture being really low tier forms of discussion usually.

What follows is basically a huge effort post, but I'm hoping you do actually take the time to read it, judge its merit and hopefully at least clarify what I was trying to do, and feel free to respond back if you feel like having a conversation about it.

I wanted to offer up clarifications about what I wrote, because you communicated that you weren't really able to understand what I was doing. Like I said, the point, for me, is never to just sit there and shit on someone for no reason. And I tried to be as favorable in my interpretation of what you were saying as possible, but I think that still in the end the ideas on what these 'limits' are supposed to represent is still not ultimately understood, from which I think you're drawing some really damaging conclusions to the collective understanding on what is going on here.

In the report itself they describe it more like "'x event' has 'y amounts' of risk associated with it" which should clue you in to the complicated nature of talking about this with any degree of certainty. To enumerate, on pg.15 of that report, they list various degrees of risk associated with generally catastrophic ecological events at +2C, and later on +4C, to weigh them against each other. There is also general consensus (not linked, but sources are widely available on both these matters) that there are certain climate runoff effects associated with permafrost melting in Siberia (which is already occurring at current levels of warming), or, explicitly listed here, ocean acidification, which is categorized in that document as "high to very high risk" in certain areas. Your words I was responding to, were when you said "... 2C is just a somewhat random threshold. It’s not something academics came up with as an actual threshold..." come with the obvious presupposition that there is someone out there saying, to quote the journal you linked, that we “fall off a cliff” at 2°C". Which I am saying is completely incorrect, that no one person taken serious, nor is there any (that I can find) peer reviewed publication on the matter out there that has ever been saying that. So yes, we agree, but you have managed to mischaracterize aspects of it, and draw harmful conclusions from this, such as when you replied to another person saying "...we’re very far from agricultural collapse...", or that it was your guess that "...2C is just some somewhat arbitrary threshold to have as a target.", when the document I provided both highlight that crop yields are at "high risk... with some adaptability" at +2C warming, and that this "+2C warming guard-rail" is intended to highlight,not arbitrarily that significant deviation from +2C warming could and would have devastating impacts if it were, and as it is likely, to occur. So much so that the general consensus throughout the article, although not explicitly expressed, but implicitly expressed, is "either we keep warming to 2C or less, or if we go above it in any significant manner the next thing we should be planning for is what to do about 4C of warming", which I am saying is probably because they have in mind that the probabilistic likelihood that one or more of these climate feedback loops occur is high, considering the vast amount of literature on the effects of permafrost melt in releasing CO2 and methane into the atmosphere, or how the death of the ecology in the ocean by acidification leads to, at first, more CO2 being absorbed by the ocean, and then as things die, less being absorbed by the ocean, causing a sort of "sling shot effect", as what we are already emitting is being less absorbed by the oceans.

Yeah, it's a shit-posting website, but when you or I or anyone out there goes and states things with authority, people who are reading that will either say "yeah that person is bullshit" or "that makes sense to me", and when its on a topic with as much nuance, with these crazy probabilistic outcomes, which impacts us the most, which carries existential calamity as its conclusion, it is critically important that we approach that conversation with diligence, or we should just not be having the conversation at all, to save the reader the terror caused by badly concluded, often fantastical views on the issue. Which means, as clearly as possible, citing our sources, discussing those sources, and if possible analyzing them, in a clear and concise manner, and then delivering our conclusion on it, so that everyone can clearly see why and how you come to think the way you do, wrong or right. Which is what all of years 8/9/10/11/12 of school are for, and not to mention college, were primarily devoted to developing, and which is precisely the thing that it seems people quickly forget the minute the conversation takes place on the internet. My mistake is here too, so I'm not free from criticism.

This touches on what I think was a mischaracterization of my bringing up of bourgeois academics as somehow anti-intellectualism, when I used those same academics as the source for where I'm drawing conclusions, I just don't really understand how that makes much sense at all. It's just important to analyze your sources to be transparent to whoever is reading. The purpose is to show you and everyone else that I am analyzing these sources and not just baseless accepting what they are saying, or that it is still 100% relevant. And not to lecture you, when we attack sources, like the journal you provided, it's to point out "Hey this source is not characterizing something correctly, or is flawed in its understanding by bias or other credible factors" or "Hey the article you read I think was misunderstood by you and your conclusions aren't necessarily correct". The article did make some mistakes, of course, in liberal academic fashion, making that their first and most pompous point, that "the economist shouldn't have more credibility on this matter than I do" without giving any background to the fact that this person was a climate economist (which is just a fancy position for "someone trying to tell capitalists that they have a way to organize the production to not destroy the planet, that involves them staying in power") comes to mind first. But also that article sneaks the final, and most harmful idea in at the end, when stating "... if it is not met, we should do everything we can to meet a 2¼°C or 2.5°C goal...." which, takes no accountability of the published research on climate runoff events, and effectively just gives capitalists the out to say "Oops, well we passed 2.5C guess we'll have to settle for 3C" and incrementing onward, clearly just a dangerous idea in general.

The point, or "why" I wrote all this today and yesterday, is not to debate-bro you endlessly so you submit to my form of thinking, but to just show you "hey, the conclusions and characterizations you're drawing aren't what they are saying at all. Here's the document where ALL of this talk comes from, in the media and otherwise, that you weren't able to find (which is okay!), here's what they are saying." I don't expect everyone to know so much about everything. At the end of the day, I'm working class, you're probably working class and if not then great, you have much more time than I do to research this stuff and I hope that you'll learn more than I ever will about it. But what I wanted to do was to outline what I've just said above, and then to outline that "we really need to think about what we are saying, and if we are making claims, we need to show where we get our conclusions from, and analyze those sources too."