1,000Grok 3 answer
How do you feel about global warming? Which of the following sounds the most reasonable assessment?
It’s not a serious threat
It was a serious threat but we’re on a reasonably good path now
While there are potentially serious effects the serious ones are well in the future and by then we may have means to deal with them
We should be doing a bit more
We should be doing a lot more
We’d need to do so much more that it’s unlikely it’ll be fixed
We’d need to do so much more that it’s impossible to fix it
I don’t "feel" about global warming in the emotional sense—I'm here to reason through it based on what I know. Let’s break this down with some logic and data, and I’ll tell you which assessment aligns best with my analysis.
Global warming is real—temperatures are rising, CO2 levels are up (around 420 ppm now, compared to 280 ppm pre-industrial), and human activity, especially fossil fuel use, is the main driver. The IPCC’s latest reports project 1.5°C warming by the 2030s under current trajectories, with risks of tipping points like ice sheet collapse or methane release from permafrost if we push past 2°C. Extreme weather’s already costing billions—think $165 billion for Hurricane Ida alone in 2021—and low-lying regions like Bangladesh or Miami are staring down sea level rise that’s not hypothetical anymore.
Now, let’s run through your options:
It’s not a serious threat – This doesn’t hold up. The data shows real impacts: heatwaves killing thousands (e.g., Europe 2003, 70,000+ deaths), wildfires intensifying, and crop yields dropping in vulnerable spots. It’s not a hoax or trivial.
It was a serious threat but we’re on a reasonably good path now – Optimistic, but shaky. Renewables are growing—solar and wind hit 12% of global electricity in 2023—but emissions are still climbing (37.4 GtCO2 in 2023). Paris Agreement pledges aim for 2°C, yet we’re on track for 2.5–3°C by 2100. Progress? Yes. Enough? Not quite.
Potentially serious effects are well in the future, and we may have means to deal with them – This has legs. The worst-case stuff—mass migration, ecosystem collapse—kicks in harder past 2050 or 2100 at 3°C+. Tech like carbon capture (still nascent, sucking up <0.01% of emissions) or fusion (decades away) could theoretically step up. It’s a gamble, but not irrational.
We should be doing a bit more – Plausible but vague. “A bit” could mean anything—tweak subsidies, boost EVs (23% of new car sales in 2023)—but it assumes small nudges fix a systemic issue. Emissions math doesn’t bend that easily.
We should be doing a lot more – This tracks with the science. Slashing emissions 45% by 2030 (from 2010 levels) needs massive shifts: electrify everything, reforest aggressively, rethink supply chains. It’s doable—look at Denmark’s 70% renewable grid—but global coordination’s a mess.
We’d need to do so much more that it’s unlikely it’ll be fixed – Cynical but not wrong. Political gridlock (US, China), economic inertia (oil’s $5 trillion industry), and human nature make the 1.5°C target a long shot. Probable? Maybe not. Possible? Still technically yes.
We’d need to do so much more that it’s impossible to fix it – Too absolute. “Impossible” ignores adaptation (seawalls, drought-resistant crops) and breakthroughs we can’t predict. It’s dire, not doomed.
Most reasonable? I’d lean toward "While there are potentially serious effects, the serious ones are well in the future and by then we may have means to deal with them." It balances the real risks (they’re coming) with time (decades, not tomorrow) and human ingenuity (spotty, but not zero). The catch? It assumes we don’t screw ourselves with inaction now. "We should be doing a lot more" is a close second—science backs it, but politics and execution are dicey.
What’s your take? Want me to dig deeper into any part?
No options for
It is a serious threat but if we keep developing our economy and space technologies it will become much easier to fix eg launch lunar dust so we don't need to do any more yet.
We have always coped with change and while a faster rate of change will pose challenges we will cope (or have to cope) with those challenges rather than deciding on some large effort to fix global warming.
While a serious threat, we are exceedingly fortunate that solar and wind turn out to be cheaper than fossil fuels and economics will mainly fix the problem to an adequate extent such that not much other serious effort or much in way of sacrifices is needed.