This new study seems to take us back to where I thought we were in 2007 with this issue, before some studies started suggesting
less dangerous possibilities and certain researchers started getting some pretty serious, and I thought unfair, heat.
Not exact matches
At the conclusion of their book, For the Common Good, Herman Daly and John B. Cobb Jr. find hope in thinking that «on a hotter planet, with lost deltas and shrunken coastlines, under a more
dangerous sun, with
less arable land, more people, fewer species of living things, a legacy of poisonous wastes, and much beauty irrevocably lost, there will still be the
possibility that our children's children will learn at last to live as a community among communities.»
The whole experience was
less painful than a mosquito bite — and, taking into account the
possibility of mosquito - borne disease,
less dangerous.
It says nothing about people rushing to stoke the engine with more and more coal, or how much actual coal is added (thus the actual range of speeds to expect), or the
possibility of a precipice with bridge out up ahead (runaway GW), how
dangerous that might be at various speeds, entailing greater or
less number of deaths, or how far or close that precipice is, which we don't know either (except we have some fossil evidence of train wrecks in which 90 % of life died, so we know it could be bad).