The threshold isn't measured in windmills, it's measured in co2.

If we emit more than 0, then we're in trouble.

Needless to say, we're in a lot of trouble.

So, your cellular respiration is the problem? Got it. Have you looked into Heavens Gate or Aum Shinrikuo? That might be interesting to you.

It's kind of lucky for everyone that climate is mostly a perfect sliding scale, the more CO2 you avoid putting into the atmosphere the more heat capacity you'd avoid. So every bit helps. Many negative impacts of heat, like changing intense weather, biodiversity loss, and deaths to high heat also correspondingly change linearly with heat. So every bit is a literal victory, there's no major cutoff that we know of until things get really bad (which they might). What's your point?

The goal is not to "gain better control" over the earth's temperature, it's to stop actively throwing the temperature out of control.

Worth scrolling through this if you have been midwit-pilled into thinking humans have no levers of control on this question: https://xkcd.com/1732/

Please explain your alternative hypothesis.

“midwit-pilled”? Is this a “How do you do, fellow kids” rhetorical ploy? You’ve got it backwards. The average American and European thinks the Earth will be destroyed in current year + 5 years, and modern sumptuary laws or ersatz-religious rituals around recycling or performative bicycling have a material impact on climatic fluctuations that take thousands of years.

If XKCD is your source, you’re not on the right side of the bell curve. Sorry, friend. It’s not your fault. It’s just cruel statistics to be average. We can smugly scoff at how religions exploited the gullible for their own empowerment, and yet be oblivious to how it’s happening to them. Wow, an eschatological crisis? Guess I better vote how I’m told and self-flagellate.

> The average American and European thinks the Earth will be destroyed in current year + 5 years

Midwit take, not evidenced whatsoever. Please cite a single source showing any substantial number of people who believe "the earth will be destroyed" within 5 years. Less than 20% of Americans even believe climate change will seriously negatively affect them personally within 50 years.

Or is this just lazy and dishonest shorthand for something like "believe we will encounter a higher rate of catastrophes?"

If so, you should be sure to lump in all those stupid emotional insurers who are also apparently under some eschatological spell that you're just too brilliant to be taken in by.

You could make an absolute fuck ton of money by insuring the areas that the stupid midwit cultist insurers think are uninsurable due to climate risk, you know. Literally just mountains of cash waiting to reward your brilliant contrarianism.

> If XKCD is your source

One little trick to claw your way up the curve of midwittery: when you encounter new information, look for the string "Source: " and then look up the text immediately following that. I provided the nearest thing to a picture-book that I could find, because exactly 0 people I've ever met with this attitude actually have the attention span to read even a single scientific paper, never mind a couple dozen or couple hundred. You are invited to defy the odds, find the backing sources, and dispute them directly.

They're not mills

Yeah, what is it with people calling turbines "windmills"?

They don't grind corn.

Is it supposed to be a some kind of cheesy insult? It just makes you sound stupid if you call them windmills.

Do you get angry at people for calling sea stars starfish? "They aren't fish they are echinoderms!"

Or perhaps you get angry at people who call light utility vehicles "trucks"?

Language evolves. People accept colloquial definitions. Wait until you learn about pencil lead, koala bears, dry cleaning, and peanuts. Windmill is absolutely acceptable if it's understood by people to mean wind turbine, which it is.

This is an interesting response.

I think you know that “windmill” isn’t just a synonym for wind turbine but a politicised insult originating in the fossil fuel lobby.

Why would you think that?