Audible Groan from the philosophy department .

As for manipulating readers by a simple metaphorical illustration that sums up the situation metaphorically pretty well, I really don’t think so.

I presume from the tone of your comment that you don’t believe what the climatologists and the overwhelming weight of empirical evidence are telling us. can you please explain why and why we should reject what seems to clearly be the reality here?

***

Torcello said the letter will remain open for endorsement for academics to sign through the end of November.

Would be good to know how many signatures it finally gets and update this. Good letter there which I hope has some real impact.

“… to warm another 1.1 degrees before stabilizing, Torcello said.”
Give this guy another tenner and he will you tell more fairy tales.

I’m not aware of any scientific agreement that an increase that stops at 3.6°F/2°C will “avoid catastrophic climate change.” What I’ve seen is that an increasing number of scientists as well as representatives of developing nations warn that a 2°C increase would be extremely dangerous. The long-term consequences of the current level of warming could be catastrophic for certain species and certain populations. I also note that the letter itself does not mention a limit of 2°C:

“Given such high stakes, our leaders ought to be mustering planet-wide mobilization, at all societal levels, to limit global warming to no more than 1.5 degrees Celsius.”

According to some prominent scientists, even that is too high.