Which has already happened and is irreversible as far as we know
>We're perfectly capable to change that ... we just don't want to.
No, change on the scale that would be needed to mitigate (there is no reversing, only mitigation) would require mass casualties, because it would require deindustrialization.
>But we don't know how it will play out
Yes, but we know what may improve our chances.
> Which has already happened
True.
> and is irreversible as far as we know
Not true.
> change on the scale that would be needed to mitigate (there is no reversing, only mitigation) would require mass casualties, because it would require deindustrialization
A superlative suggestion, sir. With just two minor flaws. One, it's not true. And two, it's not true. Now I realise that, technically speaking, that's only one flaw; but I thought it was such a big one, it was worth mentioning twice.
> Yes, but we know what may improve our chances.
What would that be?