(I think) we're finally screwed...

[Laika]

I'm going to try not to ramble and get straight to the point; I think it is now almost certain that we will experience catastrophic climate change within the century. Believe it or don't believe it; agree or don't agree; is it really going to make much difference?

In the spoiler is a video by Jason Unruhe (of Maoist Rebel News). It is a response to a study which deals with the probable failure of efforts to prevent catastrophic climate change. I know the politics may be off putting or not to your taste, but he has expressed probably better than I can in a thread the level of frustration, fear, anger and incomprehension I now feel and have been trying to process for some time.

Spoiler: Contains Bad Language

For those who want to read the Full Study for yourself the link is here. I have read it and, in its essentials, it is as bad as the video suggests: http://www.lifeworth.com/deepadaptation.pdf

This is obviously not the "mainstream media" and doesn't carry either the weight or credibility of sources we trust but essentially it is probably a matter of time before someone actually "calls it" and says that we have gone beyond the point of no return. There is plenty of materials out there if you want to put everything together. Mark Lynas' book "Six Degrees" would be a good place to start and the video below deals with some of the same material (which are also summarised here). Honestly, read the book, share it and think on it. The video doesn't do it justice and the experience of reading gives time to let things sink in better.

As a non-scientist, I have tried to keep up with the research on climate change and I'm at the point where this is "enough" for me to confirm what I had already begun to suspect after Trumps' election and the announcement of the US withdrawal from the Paris Agreement in 2017. According to a report by the International Panel on Climate Change, we now have 12 years to avert climate change of 1.5'C and would have to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to zero by 2050. Given the level of political dysfunction that now passes for daily news headlines, I think the facts indicate it should be no longer controversial to argue that is an extremely remote possibility. This is not simply the failure of one individual, one party or one country, but that there has been and is now a global systematic failure to address real threats facing the world. However we got here and whoever got us here, I think we are now beyond the point of no return.

I don't have a point to this thread and yet still reluctant to post it because "saying it" makes it more real somehow. Maybe sharing this will help people go over things and help re-evaluate and something better will come out of reflection. We can hope. Maybe go and spend time with friends, family members and loved ones (or treasured pets who can be great therapy to be around). we need each other and when all is said and done, whatever possessions, status symbols, power, money, labels or identities we throw around and pretend they are important- its the people around us who we rely on and who make us who we are. I find myself thinking that hopefully we will learn how to have a different kind of conversation as time moves on but I don't know really where to start. I don't know where things go from here. I just know I have to start somewhere...

What even can be said?

 

[Skwim]

,

Think human induced global warming is simply god's way of bringing about Armageddon without taking responsibility for it?

How about it, all you Christians out there? Possibility or not, and if not, why not?

.

 

[pearl]

The first step is in acknowledging the reality of climate change and that more than a natural occurrence, we have been aiding it in our lifestyle. Are we ready to give up ALL our plastic, oil. coal etc.?

 

[Laika]

The first step is in acknowledging the reality of climate change and that more than a natural occurrence, we have been aiding it in our lifestyle. Are we ready to give up ALL our plastic, oil. coal etc.?

I acknowledge that (geologically speaking) recent climate change has man-made causes. The problem is that our social, economic and political systems have worked to perpetuate it. We do not have "control" over these systems and have had a limited time to respond to it. We have virtually run out of time and our political systems are "preoccupied" with other issues. At best, reforms will make the situation less bad, but won't change the fact it will be bad.

 

[WalterTrull]

There will be plagues and catastrophes. There will be "wars and rumors of wars" And yet we will continue.

 

[`mud]

I'm 80 yrs old......I won't be here in a few years.
If I was 60 yrs old........I would be quite worried.
If I was 40 yrs old.......I would really run for office.
If I was 20 yrs old......Don't worry.... in 60 yrs.......

 

[Curious George]

Usually when people start talking about the end of civilization, I tune them out.

I am very much favor environmental protection, ecological considerations, and reducing our pollution and carbon footprint. However, I simply do not buy the hype of an apocalyptic event in the near future. I think that use of such claims are in poor taste and an emotional plea for a want of relevancy.

 

[`mud]

Did anyone notice the hammer and cycle in the flic above ?

 

[Laika]

Usually when people start talking about the end of civilization, I tune them out.

I am very much favour environmental protection, ecological considerations, and reducing our pollution and carbon footprint. However, I simply do not buy the hype of an apocalyptic event in the near future. I think that use of such claims are in poor taste and an emotional plea for a want of relevancy.

There isn't really a way to put it in good taste. If you get diagnosed with cancer, even if it is treatable, you're going to have moments when you think about what happens if things go wrong. It's a difficult emotion, but it is something we can respect even in facing the end. Climate Change is not the same as cancer because it isn't as immediate or personal, but your going to have an emotional reaction to the fact it brings us face to face with our own mortality.

As for relevancy, I really don't know how to deal with these facts and I'm trying to find a way to talk about it that, whilst perhaps in bad taste, at least respects the potential loss of life and what it means to live though. I believe It's something we are all going to have to come to terms with in our own way in our own time and I want to make a start on that journey to be better prepared and accept what may yet come to be.

There will be plagues and catastrophes. There will be "wars and rumors of wars" And yet we will continue.

People will have to live though it, and some will have to lead us through it. Future generations will have the benefit of knowing how it turned out, assuming they survive in some form. We don't have the luxury of hindsight and it isn't wrong to face that honestly with doubt, as well as hope.

 

[Curious George]

There isn't really a way to put it in good taste. If you get diagnosed with cancer, even if it is treatable, you're going to have moments when you think about what happens if things go wrong. It's a difficult emotion, but it is something we can respect even in facing the end. Climate Change is not the same as cancer because it isn't as immediate or personal, but your going to have an emotional reaction to the fact it brings us face to face with our own mortality.

As for relevancy, I really don't know how to deal with these facts and I'm trying to find a way to talk about it that, whilst perhaps in bad taste, at least respects the potential loss of life and what it means to live though. It's something we are all going to have to come to terms with in our own way in our own time.

I think you have missed my point. Doom and gloom reports-- whether originating in the rats of Nimh, climate change, or your local religious chapter-- are all seeking to be heard. This need for relevancy, makes us gravitate towards extremes. I do not see it as cancer vs good health but rather as declaring a life expectancy before a doctor visit.

Our climate is changing, yes. We probably would have been better off switching to nuclear power when we had the chance. But, no use crying over spilled milk. We will either find a way to adapt or we will not. We do not need to churn hysteria. And if our position requires us to churn hysteria, perhaps we should reevaluate our position.

 

[suncowiam]

Not sure why this topic is a political topic.

I'm pretty sure, if I was a conservative, I would at least consider the plausibility of man made climates considering all the pollution we create.

The fact that it is a political topic is exactly why we will probably never be able to solve this. Humans can do many things, but when its a heated issue between left and right, well, then we're pretty screwed.

 

[columbus]

Usually when people start talking about the end of civilization, I tune them out.

But, no use crying over spilled milk. We will either find a way to adapt or we will not.

I am very glad that I am a 60ish non-parent.
I won't have to explain my lack of interest in the biosphere to anybody.
Tom

 

[suncowiam]

I think you have missed my point. Doom and gloom reports-- whether originating in the rats of Nimh, climate change, or your local religious chapter-- are all seeking to be heard. This need for relevancy, makes us gravitate towards extremes. I do not see it as cancer vs good health but rather as declaring a life expectancy before a doctor visit.

Our climate is changing, yes. We probably would have been better off switching to nuclear power when we had the chance. But, no use crying over spilled milk. We will either find a way to adapt or we will not. We do not need to churn hysteria. And if our position requires us to churn hysteria, perhaps we should reevaluate our position.

When people start chiming the end of civilization, they're usually delusional and preaching some religious act. I too, ignore these types of doom and glooms...

But, let's not equate all chiming of the end of civilization to be equivalent. Possibly, what Laika is mentioning is an actual plausibility given what we do know of this event.

Since you compared this to hearing of having cancer and not needing to jump into hysteria, then I'll just say to each his own. I don't know what amounts to hysteria but I would definitely be concerned. Then I would prioritize my behaviors and philosophy to ensure the cancer can be beaten.

 

[Curious George]

I am very glad that I am a 60ish non-parent.
I won't have to explain my lack of interest in the biosphere to anybody.
Tom

Or your lack of belief that a mythological creature was coming to slay the sinners. I suppose you are lucky in that regard.

 

[Laika]

I think you have missed my point. Doom and gloom reports-- whether originating in the rats of Nimh, climate change, or your local religious chapter-- are all seeking to be heard. This need for relevancy, makes us gravitate towards extremes. I do not see it as cancer vs good health but rather as declaring a life expectancy before a doctor visit.

Our climate is changing, yes. We probably would have been better off switching to nuclear power when we had the chance. But, no use crying over spilled milk. We will either find a way to adapt or we will not. We do not need to churn hysteria. And if our position requires us to churn hysteria, perhaps we should reevaluate our position.

I agree that hysteria is unhelpful. But learning to talk about the dangers we face as we have set ourselves on such a reckless trajectory is a necessary part of accepting and coping with the process.

We will change the way we grow crops. We will have to change the way we catch fish as our oceans change. We will move away from coastlines as sea levels rise. We will have to confront a the realities of a world with large displaced populations of environmental refugees. We will have to meet the challenges of living with fewer resources, ideally without adding to our difficulties by waging wars against each other. We will seek to survive.

But that process will not be without casualties.There will be defeats and set backs even with the most assertive environmental leadership. The difficulty we have now is that our current direction puts us head long in to those difficulties and does not prepare them. As a global society, we are maximising the risks and the dangers and a great many people will suffer and die as a consequence of our taking such a path.

We will adapt, and I want to do what I can to help that along, but not all of us will be there to see the end result because we cannot control everything. Something will go wrong and we need to be ready to accept that is a possibility. It's not black and white but much more grey in the outcome.

 

[Curious George]

When people start chiming the end of civilization, they're usually delusional and preaching some religious act. I too, ignore these types of doom and glooms...

But, let's not equate all chiming of the end of civilization to be equivalent. Possibly, what Laika is mentioning is an actual plausibility given what we do know of this event.

Since you compared this to hearing of having cancer and not needing to jump into hysteria, then I'll just say to each his own. I don't know what amounts to hysteria but I would definitely be concerned. Then I would prioritize my behaviors and philosophy to ensure the cancer can be beaten.

If you are jumping on the world is gpimg to end bus, you are engaging the hysteria. It is not too hard to see the same sensationalized stories. Some use science, some use religion, some use villified enemy groups, and some are slightly more novel (not sure under what Y2K falls).

I agree that climate change is a problem. I agree that pollution is a problem. I do not believe outlandish speculation.

Regarding your sentiment that one should modify their politics and philosophy accordingly this is sensible, if and only if, you are subscribing to sensible theories.

 

[2ndpillar]

I'm going to try not to ramble and get straight to the point; I think it is now almost certain that we will experience catastrophic climate change within the century. Believe it or don't believe it; agree or don't agree; is it really going to make much difference?

In the spoiler is a video by Jason Unruhe (of Maoist Rebel News). It is a response to a study which deals with the probable failure of efforts to prevent catastrophic climate change. I know the politics may be off putting or not to your taste, but he has expressed probably better than I can in a thread the level of frustration, fear, anger and incomprehension I now feel and have been trying to process for some time.

Spoiler: Contains Bad Language

For those who want to read the Full Study for yourself the link is here. I have read it and, in its essentials, it is as bad as the video suggests: http://www.lifeworth.com/deepadaptation.pdf

This is obviously not the "mainstream media" and doesn't carry either the weight or credibility of sources we trust but essentially it is probably a matter of time before someone actually "calls it" and says that we have gone beyond the point of no return. There is plenty of materials out there if you want to put everything together. Mark Lynas' book "Six Degrees" would be a good place to start and the video below deals with some of the same material (which are also summarised here). Honestly, read the book, share it and think on it. The video doesn't do it justice and the experience of reading gives time to let things sink in better.

As a non-scientist, I have tried to keep up with the research on climate change and I'm at the point where this is "enough" for me to confirm what I had already begun to suspect after Trumps' election and the announcement of the US withdrawal from the Paris Agreement in 2017. According to a report by the International Panel on Climate Change, we now have 12 years to avert climate change of 1.5'C and would have to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to zero by 2050. Given the level of political dysfunction that now passes for daily news headlines, I think the facts indicate it should be no longer controversial to argue that is an extremely remote possibility. This is not simply the failure of one individual, one party or one country, but that there has been and is now a global systematic failure to address real threats facing the world. However we got here and whoever got us here, I think we are now beyond the point of no return.

I don't have a point to this thread and yet still reluctant to post it because "saying it" makes it more real somehow. Maybe sharing this will help people go over things and help re-evaluate and something better will come out of reflection. We can hope. Maybe go and spend time with friends, family members and loved ones (or treasured pets who can be great therapy to be around). we need each other and when all is said and done, whatever possessions, status symbols, power, money, labels or identities we throw around and pretend they are important- its the people around us who we rely on and who make us who we are. I find myself thinking that hopefully we will learn how to have a different kind of conversation as time moves on but I don't know really where to start. I don't know where things go from here. I just know I have to start somewhere...

What even can be said?

Feel free to sell your car for scrap metal, sell your house, quit your job, start a garden, and move into a tent, if you buy into the hype of global warming, during a cooling period of history, sold by the globalist, who want to rule your life. When you become sick from exposure, weak from lack of food, and have to turn to someone to feed and care for you, maybe there will be someone left who has not drank the Al Gore Kool Aide. The ultimate sacrifice to save the planet for the Progressives, is for them to kill themselves, and leave a little water and oxygen for the rest of mankind. Apparently some of the elite liberals have done just that. What else could they do?

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Did anyone notice the hammer and cycle in the flic above ?

Yeah, the guy is a Maoist moron. (Not Laika, at least I don't think.) Puts me off from watching it. Might as well link to a neo-Nazi or someone who follows Pol Pot. (Ironically, National Socialism did have a very green aspect and Fascist movements helped to pioneer aspects of environmentalism and deep ecology.) I'm already aware of how we are wrecking the biosphere, anyway.

 

[Curious George]

As a global society, we are maximising the risks and the dangers and a great many people will suffer and die as a consequence of our taking such a path.

Well I am not sure about "maximizing."

But everyday choices are made that result in a great many people suffering and dying. There is a reason why you are concerned with this "path" more than others.

 

[Daemon Sophic]

It is unfortunately one of the aspects of global warming that makes those who willfully turn away from facts and science, have such an easy time of it. They hear about 1 to 5°C temperature change in the next century, and simply think “who cares?”; in their naïveté they think, “so I’ll wear a short sleeve shirt in March instead of waiting for May”.
But really the temperature inconvenience to us as primates is irrelevant. It has always been a matter of sea level change, climate instability - with flooding in some areas, while drought occurs in others; as well as the tolerances of our foods, both the plants and the insects that keep those plants alive.
In the United States we have grown spoiled with our wonderful geography making us the “bread basket of the world”, and agricultural technological advances over the last seven decades have made our preeminence in food production a glorious thing to behold.
However as we all know, human populations have bloomed right along with the food supplies. But if a few degrees of temperature change will cause not just leveling out of the food supply, but in fact a decrease of food, then there is no foreseeable outcome other than a decrease in the human population, with starvation being the primary killer, followed by disease and violence resulting from displaced populations looking for better farmlands. That is not an arguable fact. That is not something up for debate.

If as this article indicates, a 1° temperature rise results in a 3 to 7% decrease in crop yields, then that means a 3 to 7% decrease in human population: which multiplied by 7 billion human beings gives you many millions of people across the globe dying in the next several decades, unless drastic measures are taken. Globally, we don’t have a surplus of food. We eat all that we grow.

Again as I have said many times before, unless we utilize our unique human ability to foresee projections of the future, and act upon them today, so as to prevent disasters before they occur, then we will follow the exact same up-and-down population curve of every other animal that has ever existed.
Yes some of us will survive the century to come, or at least some of our grandchildren will; but there simply won’t be as many of us as there are now. And our offspring will not experience as wonderful a world as we have had the pleasure of experiencing.

Those who deny science and turn away from it so as to enact their own shortsighted policies, are naïve to the point of being a danger to all of us and our descendants.

To simplify: we are the Canadian lynx, and our crops are the snowshoe hares.
What happens to the lynx after the hare population goes down?