I've completely stopped posting on here and recently been having a great experience on X engaging with a politically diverse audience that also leans more towards industry knowhow than academic credentials, come back on there!

I think it's mainly because gas is expensive and not a domestic fuel in those countries. If they were focused on pollution they wouldn't be burning record amounts of coal, which they are. Coal is much more polluting than gas, but it's cheap for them

"staying out of the red zone" as per your figure allows up to 1.8 deg of warming. You know that will mean some low lying island states going underwater. I'd like to see you defend your threshold to people who are going to lose everything. Nothing short of pure callousness.

Yes, please keep deflecting to avoid admitting that you can't credibly define your vague end state of "climate safety".

I'm not. Now do you want to finally answer my Q? There's plenty of space below the red zone. Where exactly do you put a threshold and on what basis?

Useful figure and gets to my Q, at what level is it "safe"? You're suggesting using that word but there's no defined threshold? In the fig. we can see that undetectable impacts (which would be nice) are b/w 0.5-1 deg warming above pre industrial. That's a big range with a lot of uncertainty.

Asking questions about vague terminology is not considered uncollegial in my department, no. Rather it's encouraged. There is no scientifically defined threshold of "climate safety". Or can you point me to one in the IPCC reports?

But what's the level of "climate safety"? Zero degrees above pre industrial levels? One degree above pre industrial?

Isn't this partly what they did in Marbury v Madison ?

I hope that university deans and department heads recognize this. Let's leave impassioned policy advocacy to lobbyists and think tanks. Science needs to be above the fray, otherwise we shouldn't be calling it such.

Seeing this happen repeatedly over the past few years has been one of my biggest disappointments with academia. But with the election, I think peak academic influence on energy policy is behind us. The average voter has thrown out any academic delusions about public support for net zero goals.

It's tempting to blur this line because when people who notionally agree with you are in power, you can have outsized influence. But any sound scientific work would also NOT lend towards emotional attachment for particular policy goals or rules because there is SO much uncertainty involved.

Yes