“There’s no ambiguity about the data,” said Gavin Schmidt, a climatologist and the director of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies. “So really, it’s a question of attribution.”
Understanding what specific physical processes are behind these temperature records will help scientists improve their climate models and better predict temperatures in the future.
deleted by creator
Assuming you’re asking in good faith, the difference would be helping someone through this hell-hole that’s already here, and was disadvantaged at the start. As opposed to bringing someone in.
On top of that, having kids carries a massive carbon footprint. An adopted kid is already penciled in for that. I’d even wager a kid in the system would be more of a burden on carbon levels than one in a home.
…can’t tell if serious
Can’t be going and adopting kids all willy nilly, or else the adoption factories might ramp up production!
/s
Obviously he should just kill his adopted kid
NineMilesOfStupid
The user is interpreting it as the OP wanted to not have kids because of climate uncertainty - did not want to raise a kid that would have to deal with the climate. So instead they adopted a kid to raise someone else’s kid in a world where they would have to deal with the climate.
I think OP is implying reduction of population but the comment kinda reads weird.