> Sir David warned that if the world did not curb its burning of fossil fuels "we will reach that level by 2100"."
[Emphasis mine]
He literally did say that, unless you think "would not sustain human life" is compatible with "habitable". That quote was an asinine statement to make and only serves to provide ammunition to those who want to convince people that climate change is not a real problem.
No scientist believes that climate change will cause such sire circumstances.
The experts on the matter believe that sea levels will rise by a meter or so over the next hundred years.
If you believe that this will end the world, then you should know that the experts disagree with you, and that you should go read some more science.
So yes, it is true that "the last time C02 levels were at this level, the world could not sustain life". But it is also misleading as it implies causation.
The scienctists do not believe that these levels would cause mass extinction of human life. The badness is closer in scale to another Iraq war.
Now, there's a lag to warming, so it might only reach the full temperatures by 2150 or so, but King did explicitly seem to be saying we're likely to make the world uninhabitable. Or at least that the last time co2 was that high, the world was uninhabitable.
I haven't figured out why people don't take this more seriously. A child born today can expect to live past 2100. People have children and grandchildren, and yet....
He is implying causation, but no scientist actually believes that the world will be uninhabitable by 2100. That is the opinion of the experts.
