I think the concern was about diversion of resources from mitigation to adaptation, not so much the complacency argument. But yes, I remember hearing about discussions at COPs in early 2000s, f.ex. within CAN, about 'we need to start supporting adaptation' as a new position

This is an entirely different debate from where you started, which was about scenario makers using a globally agreed benchmark as a benchmark

It would be kind of arrogant if "we" were to decide to drop it as long as a substantial number of countries, representing large parts of humanity, successfully made it part of an international treaty. It is there as a benchmark, whether we are sick of it or not

"Pursuing efforts" of 1.5C was central to the bargain of Paris. As a benchmark, it is the outcome of an international process, not something scientists can disregard based on other priorities - even if most (all?) will agree it is not realistic

(Og hvis man bestiller den herfra, kan jeg også mesterlig signere den)

(For øvrig morsomt at han er den eneste Epstein må forklare hvem er - og at "nobel chairman" fungerer som billett inn i slike sirkler)

The government‘s move is also contrary to the messaging of the fund itself, which only two weeks ago made a big show about not backing down from their climate commitments, even in the face of the general backlash against "woke capitalism"

Krange also behind this classic: www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.... …and CICERO colleagues Marianne Aasen & Håkon Sælen have also done interesting work: www.sciencedirect.com/science/arti...