The issue, at least as some of us see it, is the degree of suffering experienced by us and other humans - including that which is to be experienced by future generations - while alive — javra
Read The Long Thaw by David Archer. He says there is no reason to believe humans won't survive the changes. — frank
Human extinction due to AGW? Who said that? — frank
And, while others will speak for themselves, I for one don't find overall positions such as that of Xtrix's in any way discordant to the issue I've just addressed. — javra
--Here — Xtrix
I actually read most of the articles and papers linked too here, and if anything a lot of scientists seem agree that climate change is very unlikely to be an existential risk. — ChatteringMonkey
And while I do think climate change is a serious problem that needs to be resolved, I don't think this kind of rhetoric serves that cause really. I think it damages their credibility, handing out free ammunition to climate deniers... and maybe more importantly accurate assessment of risks is important to determine what kinds of drastic solutions we need to consider to solve the problem. — ChatteringMonkey
But I'm honestly confused as to what you mean by get things moving. Do you mean get things moving to avoid 4 degrees by 2050? If so, I doubt that's really possible. — Albero
If the Hothouse Earth Hypothesis is correct, then stabilising at or above 2°C would lead to a gradual but inevitable drift up to 4°C by say the yea — Albero
That's just nonsense. Climate change is an existential risk -- there's little doubt about that. What you -- and others -- want to do here is split hairs: "Well, it's not really existential because some humans may survive" or "We'll probably get enough things done, so it's not very likely," etc. You have no idea what you're talking about, I'm afraid. — Xtrix
So where does this all leave us? It’s worthwhile to look into the worst-case scenarios, and even to highlight and emphasize them. But it’s important to accurately represent current climate consensus along the way. It’s hard to see how we solve a problem we have widespread misapprehensions about in either direction, and when a warning is overstated or inaccurate, it may sow more confusion than inspiration.
Climate change won’t kill us all. That matters. Yet it’s one of the biggest challenges ahead of us, and the results of our failure to act will be devastating. — article
Further, “the carbon effects don’t seem to pose an existential risk,” he told me. “People use 10 degrees as an illustrative example” — of a nightmare scenario where climate change goes much, much worse than expected in every respect — “and looking at it, even 10 degrees would not really cause the collapse of industrial civilization,” though the effects would still be pretty horrifying. — article
What kind of rhetoric? The truth? — Xtrix
If that's difficult, I'll put it this way: an asteroid is heading to earth. (1) If we do nothing -- what happens? We're dead. (2) If we act, we'll survive. Suppose someone starts saying, "We're doomed." What does this imply exactly? It seems to exclude (2), and thus no matter what we do we're dead. — Xtrix
Let me save all the "it's not an existential threat" crowd on here some time. Here's Republican Dan Crenshaw for you:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sQAGr1s1XFc
If you're convinced by this, that's your own issue. — Xtrix
Well there's really no alternative I can see -- so you're either wrong or we're dead. — Xtrix
It's not an existential threat, not even close. — ChatteringMonkey
It's not an existential threat, not even close.
— ChatteringMonkey
Based on what we understand now, this is true.
How would you reframe the issue to give it a little punch? — frank
I recently had a conversation with my brother-in-law and I made a comment about a recent heat-wave and that global warming really is true; he was kind enough to correct me - global warming doesn't necessarily imply heat, it could also manifest as unusual cold weather. — TheMadFool
Are you serious? The climate is not the weather. It's about the average global temperature, not local temperatures on a certain day. The fact that is snows somewhere, some day doesn't mean anything for climate change. Average global temperatures rising is what is meant with global warming. — ChatteringMonkey
Are you serious? The climate is not the weather. It's about the average global temperature, not local temperatures on a certain day. The fact that is snows somewhere, some day doesn't mean anything for climate change. Average global temperatures rising is what is meant with global warming.
— ChatteringMonkey
I was talking about the climate, not the weather - global cooling in the form of worldwide snow, freezing temperatures in (say) the Sahara, and so on. Remember climate change is about extremes - that cuts both ways (h9t or cold). Ergo, global warming can lead to global cooling. Paradox or climate change is a hoax, a well-orchestrated one. — TheMadFool
No it couldn't lead to global cooling — ChatteringMonkey
No it couldn't lead to global cooling
— ChatteringMonkey
Why not? All climate-change-is-real believers (what do you call 'em?) talk about is extreme weather. Ergo, if it snowed heavily (6 - 10 ft) all day for a month (that would be weather) all over the earth, it would be because of global warming but such an event will cause long-term global cooling, no? Ice, snow, cools, right? — TheMadFool
Really? It certainly is for some people and some nations. Killed some, and soon will make some uninhabitable. Of course, those aren't the important people, so voila, no existential threat!It's not an existential threat, not even close. — ChatteringMonkey
It's not an existential threat, not even close.
— ChatteringMonkey
Really? It certainly is for some people and some nations. Killed some, and soon will make some uninhabitable. Of course, those aren't the important people, so voila, no existential threat! — tim wood
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.