The IPCC: Can it regain its credibility?
meer.com
meer.com
Wouldn't it be good to hear more about countries/regions likely to increase their CO2 emissions in the coming years/decades?
"India: As one of the world's fastest-growing major economies, India is expected to see a significant rise in CO2 emissions. The country's energy demand is soaring, and while there is a substantial push for renewable energy, coal is projected to remain a cornerstone of its electricity generation for the foreseeable future.
Southeast Asia: This region is a hotbed for emissions growth, with several nations on an upward trajectory.
Indonesia: The world's fourth most populous country is experiencing rapid industrialization and economic development, leading to a projected increase in emissions. The energy sector, heavily reliant on coal, is the primary contributor.
Vietnam: With a booming manufacturing sector and increasing energy needs, Vietnam's CO2 emissions are set to climb. The country's power development plan still includes a significant share for coal-fired power plants.
Bangladesh and Pakistan: These densely populated countries are also on a path of rising emissions as they pursue economic development and expanded energy access for their large populations.
China: While China's emissions growth is projected to slow and potentially plateau in the coming years, it will remain the world's largest emitter for the foreseeable future. The sheer scale of its economy means that even modest growth will contribute significantly to global emissions."
I mean, the IPCC says "if we don't drastically change now, we're screwed". And the reality seems to be that it's actually worse than that. In any case, we should drastically change now.
If they say it's significantly worse than the IPCC is estimating - and specific reasons are given in the article - then I would tend to believe them.
But the result is the same: the IPCC says that we are pretty much screwed, and climate scientists say that this is an optimistic view. How does that hurt the credibility of the IPCC? The IPCC is still saying what the scientists want: we have to change, and quick.
It could lose its credibility if it said "climate change is not that big of a deal", but that's not - and by a long shot - what the IPCC is saying.
You ask ChatGPT if combining bleach and [chemical] is bad. It says there can be some dangerous irritation to the lungs, and not to do it.
You prompt it a couple times with new data that suggests the reaction could be worse, but its story doesn't really change.
So, you put on a respirator, mix the concoction - and it melts through 6 floors of your building while emitting neurotoxic gas.
ChatGPT told you it would be bad. It told you not to do it. But there's a huge difference between what it said would happen and what was actually foreseeable.
Also, the IPCC is not saying that there can be "some dangerous irritation to the lungs". The IPCC is describing catastrophic outcomes. And climate scientists are saying that it is most likely optimistic.
Back to your weird example, it's more akin to ChatGPT saying "don't do it because you will probably die", and you complain because you want ChatGPT to tell you that you will most likely die and that on top of that it will be painful.
The point is that if you don't wanna die and still do it, then you are the problem here, not ChatGPT.