I'm definitely going to read this when I get some time.

An interesting contradition seems inherent in the abstract, which isn't a good omen...

This agenda does not seek to build on existing scholarship on “climate adaptation” as it is premised on the view that social collapse is now inevitable.

The author believes this is one of the first papers in the sustainability management field to conclude that climate-induced societal collapse is now inevitable in the near term and therefore to invite scholars to explore the implications.

I've always wanted to play the madman who proclaims that the end is coming, this will give me something to use.

Seriously though, I think global warming can still be stopped just since people like Elon Musk say it can but it's clearly not going to be stopped because none of the big governments care enough. Oh well, I just hope it's going to be my grandchildren or great-grandchildren who suffer and not me.

Please don't make me laugh. I haven't read it but can say a few things up front.

First when the IPCC released their report they said it plainly - some scientists say we have as little as 12 years. Well a little statistical knowledge of the Central Limit Theorem and The Normal Distribution shows this means the vast majority do not. But what did the climate change alarmists hear - we have only 12 years. It makes you wonder - it really does.

Secondly there is a tacit assumption - namely if catastrophe does occur we cant do anything about it. There are many engineers working on the problem that disagree - but that is generally not talked about.

Climate change is real, but a doomsday scenario it is not.

As a positive huge strides are being made in Fusion power and it is now thought it could be here about 2030. That will be a massive game changer.

Another thing to notice about the IPCC is the use of so called grey literature which is non peer reviewed literature. Anybody that knows anything about science knows that is a no no that cant be covered up by the public face of the IPCC that when pressed to justify what they say simply resort to - we are not scientists - we only report what they say. As far as I am concerned, while climate change is not a hoax, the way its reported to the public creates a lot of irrational alarmism.

So stop worrying, learn some basic statistical theory (you will be surprised at the misconceptions just doing that resolves) and spend a bit of time keeping up with the progress being made in fighting the global warming that is actually occurring.

Thanks
Bill

The author states: "We do not know for certain how disruptive the effects of climate change will be."

That is correct.

2. Social collapse will be worldwide, and in the next 10 years or so. — unenlightened

There's no way to make an accurate prediction like that. It's one thing to predict the climate 10 years from now. Seems like we have fairly good models. Society is a whole different animal.

There's fuck all to be done to stop it. — unenlightened

How can anyone know that without time traveling into the future? There have been proposals for engineering the environment to correct for global warming and removing the C02 form the atmosphere.

"I have chosen to interpret the information as indicating inevitable collapse, probable catastrophe and possible extinction." — unenlightened

It's not the first doomsday prediction in the history of the human race, nor the first environmental apocalyptic prediction in the past several decades. To date, the doomsday predictions have not come true. I'm a bit skeptical of worst case scenarios. Not that they can't happen, but when they're talked about in inevitable terms. I don't think we can know enough about a system as complex as the environment in conjunction with human civilization to make such claims of certainty.

Also, when did the doom and gloom predictions go from later in this century to a decade from now? The conspiratorial part of me thinks it's a strategy to motivate people to act sooner so as to avoid eventual bad outcomes.

There's no way to make an accurate prediction like that. — Marchesk

There is a way, You type the words on a lap top and then click "post comment". Science is all about predicting the future. Weather forecasting is not totally accurate, and yet it is done with some success, without the aid of time machines. Perhaps 1 hour has not been long enough for you to read and absorb the paper, and so you resort to criticising my down and dirty headline teasers. But come up with something bit more sensible and less cliche ridden. This is a serious, well researched, thoughtful paper. Ignore it if you like, but your scorn reflects more on you than on anything said here, so maybe ignore it in silence?

Just to be clear, this not some way out nut job cherry picking statistics to make a radical fruitcake conspiracy theory. This is an expert in the field.

Dr Jem Bendell is a Professor of Sustainability Leadership and Founder of the Institute for Leadership and Sustainability (IFLAS) at the University of Cumbria (UK).

He focuses on leadership and communications for social change, as well as approaches that may help humanity face climate-induced disruption.

A graduate of the University of Cambridge, he had twenty years of experience in sustainable business and finance, as a researcher, educator, facilitator, advisor, & entrepreneur, having lived & worked in six countries. Clients for his strategy development included international corporations, UN agencies and international NGOs. The World Economic Forum (WEF) recognised Professor Bendell as a Young Global Leader for his work on sustainable business alliances. With over 100 publications, including four books and five UN reports, he regularly appeared in international media on topics of sustainable business and finance, as well as currency innovation. His TEDx talk is the most watched online speech on complementary currencies. In 2012 Professor Bendell co-authored the WEF report on the Sharing Economy. Previously he helped create innovative alliances, including the Marine Stewardship Council, to endorse sustainable fisheries and The Finance Innovation Lab, to promote sustainable finance. In 2007 he wrote a report for WWF on the responsibility of luxury brands, which appeared in over 50 newspapers and magazines worldwide, and inspired a number of entrepreneurs to create businesses in the luxury sector.

fruitcake conspiracy theory — unenlightened

The part about global social collapse and extinction is idiotic.

The author states: "We do not know for certain how disruptive the effects of climate change will be."

That is correct. — frank

But if there is a significant chance for massive disruptions, avoiding or alleviating such disruptions ought to be a major concern.

There's no way to make an accurate prediction like that. It's one thing to predict the climate 10 years from now. Seems like we have fairly good models. Society is a whole different animal. — Marchesk

We still ought to consider reasoned predictions. Just that the knowledge is not certain does not mean it isn't a relevant prediction.

But if there is a significant chance for massive disruptions, avoiding or alleviating such disruptions ought to be a major concern. — Echarmion

Massive disruption, yes, sooner or later. But that would be true even if there was no anthropogenic global warming.

I'd like to see your qualifications for calling this guy an idiot. Otherwise I'll just treat your remark as idiotic.

Massive disruption, yes, sooner or later. But that would be true even if there was no anthropogenic global warming. — frank

That's neatly sidestepping the issue. We are talking about a specific prediction about near-term societal collapse due to anthropogenic climate change. As @unenlightened said, you are free to ignore it, but not to call it "silly" without argument.

I didn't say he was an idiot. Any prediction of global social collapse and extinction is idiotic. There is no reason to believe the entire 100,000 years of global warming we have ahead of us will cause either of those things.

I understand. You have no qualifications whatsoever, you just like to pontificate on what you think is idiotic.

@Echarmion
I think the global social collapse and extinction bit was unenlightened, not the guy from the two-bit college.

understand. You have no qualifications whatsoever, you just like to pontificate on what you think is idiotic. — unenlightened

I have the same qualifications you do for prophecy.

I think the global social collapse and extinction bit was unenlightened, not the guy from the two-bit college. — frank

No, I think it's the paper making these predictions. Though when it says "extinction event", it doesn't mean extinction of humans.

So unenlightened meant frog extinction? Interesting factoid: frogs have survived many mass extinction events, but might not survive human-produced pollution.

:groan:

I think it's fairly clear what is a quote and what are my own words in my posts. But in case it isn't, I have not myself used the phrase "mass extinction" in any post in this thread.

No one suggested you did. You were just talking about human extinction (for some odd reason).

↪unenlightened No one suggested you did. You were just talking about human extinction (for some odd reason). — frank

I want you to point out exactly where I talked about human extinction or withdraw the claim, because I think you are making shit up about me.

@unenlightened

"I have chosen to interpret the information as indicating inevitable collapse, probable catastrophe and possible extinction."
— unenlightened — Marchesk

Did you not see that Marchesk quoted you? But I'm glad to hear you're backing down on that.

Now on to global social collapse. The paper does not explain how China, which has unparalleled experience with famine, is going to manage to go into collapse in the next 10 years. Care to enlighten us?

Did you not see that Marchesk quoted you? But I'm glad to hear you're backing down on that. — frank

Do you not see that in my post that is a quote of the article? So it is not my words. Will you now withdraw your false claim about me?

Do you not see that in my post that is a quote of the article? So it is not my words. Will you now withdraw your false claim about me? — unenlightened

OK. You're not the idiot. The author of that paper is.

Thank you.
And now let's go back to your qualifications for calling Dr Jem Bendell, a Professor of Sustainability Leadership and Founder of the Institute for Leadership and Sustainability (IFLAS) at the University of Cumbria (UK), an idiot.

Look, if you want to believe that human extinction is on the horizon, feel free.

But to the stray five or six people who read this thread: please refer to the works of reputable scientists before seriously considering the ravings mentioned in the OP.

That's all I wanted to say. :)

As I thought, you're the idiot. You have made zero contribution to understanding anything, provided zero new information or perspective, and wasted a deal of time with baseless ad homs and insults. Thanks.

If you like.

Remember folks, refer to reputable scientists before seriously considering the lunacy mentioned in the OP.

Remember folks, refer to reputable scientists before seriously considering the lunacy mentioned in the OP. — frank

Remember folks, this idiot has no qualification in the field, and likes to make up random accusations that he cannot begin to justify.