We're nowhere near anything that "could" happen as stated in that article
The article cites flooding in Bangladesh as a likely result of climate change. A news article published today cites one hundred people dead and tens of thousands displaced due to flooding. You're objectively wrong here.
saying whatever may have happened by then and 2000 would cause it is completely absurd. Though that really wasn't the best example article since it just speculates.
The article described how carbon dioxide emissions needed to be reduced by 2000 before passing a figurative "point of no return." The predicted consequences were sea level rise, flooding, the consequences of those two things, etc. The climate change predictions have virtually all been correct.
Remember Al gore and the ice caps? I do.
The polar ice caps are definitely melting. What are you talking about?
Sorry, you're here using unnecessary electricity, so you're either not really serious about it, or you just expect everyone else to do something about it.
Advocating for systemic solutions to systemic problems is not even close to "expecting everyone else" to do something about it.
You're also suggesting that internet usage in a modern society is "unnecessary electricity," and that's just false.
So you're saying if all the climate change believers worldwide stopped using the internet, personal use of PC's, personal use of cellphones .... that it would make no difference??
Using the internet, etc. isn't the problem. The problem is where we get our energy, and that's a systemic problem.
Also, suggesting that a group of people (a system, if you will) stop using the internet, etc. is proposing a systemic solution to a systemic problem (albeit a bad solution, since it doesn't address the systemic problems). It's also unreasonable.
@Hanafuda, you can argue for or against climate change as a human-caused issue (it is one), and you can argue for or against ways to curb climate change, but saying a human in a modern society who acknowledges climate change as a problem but also uses electricity is being hypocritical is utter nonsense. Me not using electricity is untenable, it would accomplish practically nothing, and it doesn't address the systemic causes of climate change. There are reasonable things people can and should do to reduce one's carbon footprint, but that's a very small part of the solution, and you're being ridiculous when you say "don't use electricity if you care so much." That would be like saying I should kill myself to reduce carbon emissions. Similarly, it's untenable, it would accomplish practically nothing, and it doesn't address the systemic causes of climate change. Your nonargument argument only serves as a distraction and a way to remove yourself from the conversation. Nothing is accomplished by it.