The goal of automation is to drive down the cost of labor. Historically speaking workers don't win when automation comes in, it drives down the cost of labor and makes them inherently less valuable which weakens their bargaining position when it comes to negotiating for wages.

​

If you'd like to study a really good example of this, read about the luddites. Plenty of other good historical examples out there too if that's too old for your tastes.

With every rise in automation under capitalism, the losers will be the workers and the winners will be the capital owners. It has always been like this in the industrial revolution going back to when the loom replaced the weaving guilds and drove down the cost of labor which is the goal of automation.

jokes on you idiots, I don't even check my own email address.

I'm sorry, but we are going in circles. I will not be replying anymore. I literally linked you your own article with climate scientists saying what particulars in their simulations they have high and low confidence on which is predicated on our understanding of certain mechanics in earths system which we are still learning much about.. Not only that the lower pathways rely on us cutting emissions, which I am telling you isn't happening unless there are major changes to our growth based economic system as it is addicted to the cheap energy carbon based fuels provide.

​

Work on your reading comprehension and read your own stuff please.

I am not spreading misinformation. I am making people aware of the limitations of our scientific modeling and stating clearly the present course we are on. I have given you more than enough to back up my statements which obviously is a bother to you, which is a personal problem I'm afraid. Have a nice life.

Yes, I treat the models like they're supposed to be treated, as a good reference and solid idea on how things turn out. They don't perfectly simulate reality for the reasons I have outlined.

​

I do not listen to climate panel agreements anymore because they have been shown to be worth less than the paper they are written on outside of a few cases. I've been following climate panels since the 90s and we've nearly doubled CO2 emissions since then. There is no meaningful interest in reducing emissions for a myriad of factors which can be boiled down to, we will not ignore cheap energy when its so vital to economic growth.

But the thing is, we aren't stopping at 2c. We will burn carbon based energy sources as long as our current system exists at increasing rates until they're gone, which is backed up by our behavior since the outset of the industrial revolution.

​

A bunch of these people you're linking are making assumptions that our carbon emitting industrial activity will cease, which is wrong unless a revolution to change our economic system happens.

​

Also in those articles those scientists talk about how they have LOW CONFIDENCE due to a variety of factors in their modeling around several feedback loops. Read your own stuff please

There's more than enough fossil fuels though to kick off feedback loops in the earths climate. Feedback loops such as carbon release from forest fires, albedo loss from earth losing reflective surfaces, permafrost melt and a couple others I'm missing.

​

Not only that, but the CO2 ppm we are currently sitting at is roughly the same as when the permian started, which is why it's no coincidence we are seeing earths systems begin to behave in similar ways as during the outset of the permian as we have filled the atmosphere full of carbon.

Climate scientists will tell you that their long term models are getting BETTER but not 100% accurate because earth is an extremely complex system with many unknown variables and uncertainties. They don't account for permafrost thaw or dynamic vegetation feedback which contains vast amounts of methane for example.

https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-how-carbon-cycle-feedbacks-could-make-global-warming-worse/

Our global industrial activity emits more CO2 than a super volcano with no signs of slowing down on top of observable CO2 feedback loops going off. Ocean heat content and acidity is rising as it did in the Permian. So I don't think its an unfair claim to make.

I'm sorry but, many of these models have been shown to be incredibly conservative and leave out many variables which is why "sooner than expected" is a catch phrase among climate scientists.

I read reports religiously.

Yeah I don't understand why people feel the need to be so negative about this! We're only looking at something that will probably be worse than the Permian extinction event. no big deal really.