Is it that because leaders represent the people, it's actually a good and just thing when a soldier dies in a pointless war? That the politicians cannot be blamed?

You seem to be missing the point. Soldiers are duty bound to obey orders, it's what they're for; I'm telling your the orders themselves can be stupid, for which the commander in chief can be directly blamed.

No you're missing the point (apparently), in a war it's actually the solder on the ground who does the killing and perpetuating the conflict. The cowards who sit at home and give the orders are just trying to stop them, to stop and prevent war. If it weren't for those pesky solders volunteering and going and killing other solders, we would all be living in peace and harmony, war would never happen.

He's a banker

Touché

Essentially yes, given the hot house scenario described by Boethius. It might be more like a late Bronze Age, or a medieval level of technology, depending primarily on the extent population. This really is an interesting subject, there has been a lot of thought given to it including interesting films dramas etc. Exploring the extent to which a civilisation would fall given a catastrophe. Perhaps that's for another thread.

But as a starter, let's say that the population were less than 1% the current levels (I was suggesting only a few thousand). Let's pretend there aren't ravaging bandits everywhere, but it is quite peaceful in terms of human conflict. Do you think we would be able to maintain an electrical supply and run electrical appliances, vehicles, with gazolene? How easy, or not, would it be to feed the population, what about healthcare?

Now take your answers and think how things would be after say 500 years, 20 generations. I suggest that the answer to these questions depends almost entirely on the numbers in the population.

On the point regarding capital moving from fossil fuels to renewables. I was only conveying what Mark Carney said the other day. I would suggest he knows what he's talking about. Don't shoot the messenger.

There is evidence that capital has seen the light. Mark Carney the out going head of the Bank of England, soon to become the UN special envoy for climate change, spoke on the BBC a few days ago. That, in no uncertain terms, that investments and infrastructure developed for the exploitation of fossil fuels will become worthless in a few years and that capital should look to invest in investments and infrastructure designed to replace them with renewable sources of energy and the emerging green economy (my wording, but this is the jist of what he was saying).

I presume the planet experienced a hot house state before, which was liveable . Presumably it is the rapid transition to this state which you are suggesting is unliveable? In which case I agree, however I do expect a small colony of humanity to survive and rebuild. Whether they manage to take any knowledge with them, is the worry. Otherwise we may go back to square one again, and start all over again, as we have done before.

The climatic conditions change from day to day, season to season, year to year. What would you mean by "not too dissimilar to what we have now"?

I was referring to general world climate as we have had for the last few hundred years. Anyway I was asking in the same paragraph what you meant by "for many of us there is no such thing as ok"?

The last ice age ended about 10,000 years ago, and there was a "Little Ice Age" in medieval times, so I don't know where you get the idea that the climatic conditions have been "remarkably stable" for the last few thousand years.

You missed the word "relatively" ( at the end of my sentence) I think. My point was that the climate can become far more unstable and severe than what we experience now. I did say that I think, I don't think you have accepted it. Even the mini ice age was small beer.

Also, are you saying that we have not passed the tipping point and could still have another ice age soon?

That's not what I was trying to say. I was saying something more along the lines of "for many of us there is no such thing as ok".

I would think that conditions not to dissimilar to what we have now would be the closest we could come to ok (or are you saying that this is also not ok?). Once large, or rapid global changes start to happen ( I'm not saying they will necessarily), we will, I expect, discover that the climactic conditions we have been used to for the last few thousand years were remarkably stable and settled and that they would rapidly become unstable and extreme, relatively.

Where did you hear this? I don't know whether that's possible or not, and if so, how severe the seismic activity would be. But then, pumping water out of aquifers or pumping fracking crap into rocks has caused seismic activity -- not terrible yet, but still... I don't quite see a connection between ocean currents and volcanic activity. How would that work?

I didn't hear it anywhere in particular, I just thought it obvious. When I've looked into it, there is acknowledgement that changes in climate might affect seismic activity, but there isn't any research which gives any indication. There doesn't seem to be any understanding yet about most of the day to day activity in the earths crust.

In regard to ocean currents, I was thinking of a rapid change in ocean temperature in certain areas for example the Humbolt current, or the Gulf Stream. The Humbolt current is adjacent to a subduction zone.

Volcanic activity can put a huge amount of ash into the atmosphere, lowering the atmosperic temperature significantly. Maybe the "balance" has not yet been lost and we've yet to see the swing back the other way.

Like the Deccan traps for example, which has been considered as a possible cause for the demise of the dinosaurs.

You are displaying your naivety here (or perhaps humour). Firstly to generate such a large effect it would require a large caldera to go off, like Yellow Stone for example, which would likely accelerate any climate change considerably with signifant pollution, not to mention large amounts of greenhouse gasses. The sun probably wouldn't shine for a decade. Secondly this would almost certainly result in the rapid acidification of the oceans to the extent that all ocean ecosystems would collapse. The acidification already caused by human pollution is reaching worrying levels. There would be mass ecosystem collapse on land as well and humanity would be at each other's throats.

Nice try at saying everything will be ok after all.

Ditto.

Quite, philosophy etc is peripheral in our world. All that counts in terms of the direction we go forward in is capitalist profit (and by extension control) and political success (meaning the ability to get into office for a term). There is the small matter of public opinion and demand, but that is a slow burn and can be controlled and redirected by the other two forces.

Nor did the alternative spirituality of new wave religions offer any long term or obvious benefits.

Perhaps you didn't delve all that deeply into New Age philosophy. It is considered that the long term role of humanity is to be custodians of the planet and therefore the biosphere. As a mystic I go further, such issues are the only viable purpose of humanity.

Yes, there is an important circulation in the North Atlantic called the Gulf Stream, or North Atlantic Drift. It's quite possible that this could stop circulating with quite drastic consequences for the climate of the whole area. When this is considered alongside the rapid warming of the Arctic, we are in for a rollercoaster ride over in Europe. Such developments are on the cards all around the globe and we could see a shutting down of circulation which delivers warmth to areas further away from the equator. Resulting in more extreme and fixed temperature zones, with a band around the equatorial regions which is uninhabitable for humans. The consequences can not be predicted at the moment, we are just along for the ride, who knows where we will end up.

Also such developments could affect the temperature conditions of the earths crust resulting in seismic and volcanic activity.

I am not sure from your English if they have approved the use of nuclear power or they just have the power (political power) to approve it or not. Please report back to me what you meant.

Both, they have the power to approve it, to subsidise it, to negotiate with investors and constructors. To insure it, take responsibility for decommissioning. Also they do currently approve of it, two new stations are being commissioned right now. Although they have dithered for the last 15 years or so, but now there is a serious energy gap looming and they have little choice if they are going to keep the lights on.

Interestingly fracking has been halted due to seismic activity, I doubt it will resume now. I expect a big expansion of offshore wind now, an industry doing very well for us.

I agree about fusion, there is a lab in the UK which has achieved it, but on a tiny scale. To scale up and catch the energy in a reliable way is as yet inconceivable from what I've heard.
I agree with your overall assessment, I think optimists are thinking in terms of the best of humanity acting in the best interests of the population etc. I fear this is naivety, sure there will be many good people working on solutions for our best interests, but in a unstable geopolitical atmosphere with failing economies, moral decline, rising nationalism and populism, capitalism exposed for the inhuman force it is, a darker route is looking more likely. With human frailty, our Achilles heal.

So why the interview, then, if the war is won? If the intellectual war is won everything else should follow. After all the science is in.

This reminds me of your faith in the adaptability of humanity. I don't have such faith, faith in highly populous civilisations to make systemic change rapidly. In the UK, the government is the primary agent in social and industrial change. Our current government repeatedly makes hollow claims and promises about action on carbon reductions. Once they are in power complacency reigns, even while they claim that the goals are being achieved, there is inaction.

The only way to get systemic change in our system, and I expect it is the same in most countries is by force, force of public opinion, public demand, public action. This is now finally beginning to happen.
Greta said in the interview that such complacency had resulted in the recent talks in Madrid failing to make progress and that we must focus on making a success of COP26 in the UK next year.

Do you know that a UK representative at the Madrid talks reported that there were 150 US representatives going around trying to impede the talks and they may have succeeded. I wonder who told them, or their superiors to do that?

of course it’s a publicity stunt, I get that. But how can anyone take it seriously. What could Greta possibly have to contribute intellectually

Yes it's a publicity stunt for the issues they are concerned with. There is no need for any intellectual content, the intellectual argument has already been won. It is simply one of many facets of a seismic shift going on in the global psyche.

On the same programme I heard Mark Carney, the outgoing governor of the Bank of England, soon to become the UN special envoy on climate change, warning investors that now is not the time to invest in fossil fuel rich enterprises, as such assets will become worthless in the near future. And that enterprises involved in Green technologies are the best places to invest.

Unfortunately I feel powerless, even if I were to shout it from the roof tops, or glue myself to the Houses of Parliament, no one would listen, because of the intense media overload we endure every day.

I do what I can personally, I don't fly, I heat my house mostly with wood I have grown myself and am researching an appropriate ground source heat pump to install. My vehicle is a problem, I expect it will be a number of years before I can have an electric vehicle. As for products with a carbon footprint, apart from food, I mainly recycle, or use secondhand products. I can't remember the last time I bought an item of new clothing, well within reason.

Interestingly, on the radio I am listening to right now, is Greta talking to Sir David Attenborough, a testament to how important this issue is. I hear him say, that for politicians, they only care about tomorrow and the next day. When are we going to stop burying our heads in the sand?

Secondly, you really should consider who you might be addressing, what age they might be. For me and my age group

Interesting point, this is something I have considered. All the people I know who are sceptical of climate change, or the appropriate response to the warnings from climate scientists, are over 70 years of age. It is about 75% of them. All the people I know under the age of 70 are fully onboard with the agenda as suggested by Bitter Crank, for example. Notable are every person I know under 20 years of age.
Indeed right across Europe, a young person who is sceptical on these issues is a great rarity. I expect, but don't know, that there are a portion of the younger age group in the US, who are sceptical for some reason. Is it the case do you think, that there is more scepticism on this in the US than elsewhere?

I can't quite work out what you are denying. You are both saying that humans are adaptable and resourceful, while also saying that they are not going to make the necessary changes and that the scientists (the ones who are meant to be most serious about this) are squabbling amongst themselves and ostracising themselves and that you are somehow going to throw the baby out with the bath water over this, while also still being concerned about the issue.

Welcome to human nature, this is what we are like, we can barely organise a piss up in a brewery. The bottom line is we need to shift from fossil fuels to renewables pronto and then start trying to work out how to shuttle folk around the place with these renewables, because they won't want to stop doing that.

Oh and in the meantime try not to go to war with each other (this includes trade wars), or profiteer, or exploit each other to much, as that will impede our progress.

The US project Iceworm has become exposed from the ice cap now. It turns out that the whole ice cap moves, flows like a glacier, which is why they abandoned the station in 1963. It adjusts to the pressures, or lack of them around the periphery. So provided the ice continues to melt around the edge it will surely collapse. Also the Arctic Ocean is warming at over twice the rate of elsewhere due to less reflectivity from less ice. A positive chain reaction, it looks like we will soon find the north west passage after all.

I predict in 5 years the ice cap will be discovered to have breached far quicker than predictions allowed for.

We'll be socialist swine by then. The Capitalists will have ripped us off and gone their bunkers by that point.

In the UK, it is the government who provided financial incentives for the installation of onshore wind turbines, they then removed them and stopped giving permission for them to be built. They have now supported offshore wind, but they are heavily involved in where permission is given for them to be built. They also provided financial incentives for small scale and domestic solar generation, then stopped the incentive just as it was taking off, putting a number of suppliers out of business and depriving users of the incentive they were promised. They also decide on the procurement of nuclear power. So in the UK politicians play the primary role in how our power generation is provided and how green it is. Indeed these politicians have been promising action on climate change, riding on the tails of the popularity of Greta.

Its weird isn't it that all these folk like me are coming up with this domesday cult ourselves individually and yet the message is identical each time. Oh I know why, because it's informed by science. There have been a number of scientific warnings over the last few weeks that the Greenland ice cap is now going to collapse, even if we stopped emitting CO2 tomorrow, it will still melt. Have you put your house on the market yet? I suppose you could build your ivory tower upwards as the water rises.

Well I would advise you to sell up before the market confidence in sea level real estate disappears. I have recently moved to 56m and now I'm confident that my grandchildren will be able to sell for a good price, infact an inflated price because no one will buy anything at sea level, so demand above about 30m will increase.

Don't refer to things like "runaway climate change." What is that? It appears to be unnecessary fear mongering.

Perhaps an irreversible cascade of greenhouse gas emissions is more appropriate. I expect to the folk on the ground the distinction would be of little concern.

Yes the world will be very different in 500 years. Yes there will be a lot of pain and bloodshed aling the way. That's enough.

Perhaps we should spare a thought for those millions, or billions, who will suffer, or have no hope of leading the comfortable lives we lead. Indeed perhaps we should be shedding a tear for the millions suffering today, admittedly not due to climate change, but rather man's inhumanity to man. Somehow I don't see the gathering climactic extremes we are beginning to experience helping these people, only exacerbating it further.

And when the rich and powerful, the exploiters, wake up and realise that they need to prepare their bunkers. What of the billions, who are currently just about managing, then?

Both

And what is the elevation of your house (assuming you are a home owner)?

Yes

Is that because of human resilience in adversity, or that climate change won't be that bad after all?

"Humanity's eviction notice"

So what is your synopsis?

So you are optimistic that we can somehow pull through without a collapse of civilisation and a return to medieval feuding warlords. I would like to share your optimism and look ahead to a bright future, but I look at the results of the climate talks in Madrid a couple of weeks ago and the rise in populism ( the PM in Australia, or Bolsonaro in Brazil) and I fear we are hiding our heads in the sand.

I didn't think that you hadn't talked about, rather you had not mentioned the elephant in the room. Also again you didn't mention what I referred to. Conflict in a land of rapidly diminishing resources. In an attempt to feed themselves and secure clean drinking water dense populations will effectively commit Hari kari. It might be interesting to consider what exactly might tip the balance. I presume you are aware of how quickly caring, loving, compassionate citizens can turn into ruthless killing machines (forgive the dramatisation, it just sounded to good to miss).

Would it be exploitative billionaires using populism to extract large amounts of money out of a country,(UK for example) causing civil unrest, so they can hide away in some lair.

Would it be mass migration on the borders of northern countries by people fleeing unbearably hot fire ravaged tropical countries.

Some massive catastrophic event.

As for your questions, I would carry on as normal, perhaps have a few sips of my favourite tipple and adopt the brace position. People like all other animals simply relax and accept the inevitable when faced with unavoidable destruction. Rather like drowning it is, a pleasant way to go.

Ahh, I see you and Brett saw me going overboard. I don't think I did, where might we differ?

Is it a healthy symptom? In what way might you regard it as healthy and therefore constructive, not for you alone, to maintaining a functioning society?

I'm not qualified to give a health check on the US. But I have a sense that things have gone a bit awry since the development of globalisation. I can understand why Lif3r wants to surround himself with guns in a country awash with guns.

Also you seem to be one of those posters who cherrypick things to dispute, or criticise and yet I notice you have kept your powder dry.

So the people in question will move into these inland cities. I think the residents might have something to say about that. At the same time if some of the scientific predictions which will affect the growing of crops make it difficult to grow food, while these people are moving house, that might be problematic. Perhaps in countries like the ones we live in will be able to adjust ok, but many of the developing countries will have big problems.

Warlords are the natural socio-cultural state when a civilisation collapses, is it not?

But you are attempting to undermine my position while not engaging. What's that about?

Surely all I need to do is add one other factor, which I was hinting at when I asked the question about where do the people who live in cities, which will find themselves below sea level, go, and what will they eat? ( perhaps you can answer this question now). The other factor is human conflict.

As to what we're going to do about it, well we can hope that world leaders will get together soon and start to formulate some plans. It's not looking very promising at the moment, but once there is money to be made in the green economy things might improve. More worrying though is the lack of foresight in regards to sea level rise. There are still many sea level developments continuing, along with building in flood plains. I wonder when real estate values will start falling on low lying property.

As I explained earlier, primates evolved at a time when the earth was so warm there were no polar ice caps. It's not going to get warmer than that. What did you think was going to happen? The oceans would just boil away and the earth would turn into a small star or something?

Have you considered how easily a civilisation can fall into a free for all between warlords? There is plenty of evidence in the historical record. Any high tech development, or industry will be straight out of the window. We will be straight back to a medieval lifestyle if we're lucky. Large areas will probably descend into waring states like Syria, or Somalia, or worse.

So we can probably agree that large numbers of people will die, there will be great suffering and injustice. Experiences which don't lend well for mutual cooperation. There is in fact as I'm sure you are aware, great suffering already, around the world and climate change has barely begun to affect the environment so far.

So we are going back to a primitive existence in short order, unless drastic action is taken soon to reduce global warming and it may be to late already. Agreed?

It seems to me that the greatest threat certainly following the first great catastrophe, or economic collapse is from other humans. There will be a race to the bottom through conflict and a desperate fight for resources. Followed by roaming battle hardened warlords. If we're lucky the nuclear warheads won't have been triggered. Although nuclear facilities like power stations would likely go off.

I don't know how much Anthropology has caught up with this idea, so this is only speculation. It looks to me that during a previous catastrophic global flooding most of humanity was wiped out in a stroke. Leaving small pockets surviving at altitude, certainly in the Himalayas, possibly the Ethiopian highlands etc. This may have happened more than once and is talked about in ancient mythology. These isolated groups obviously survived and grew into modern humanity.

I see this extinction event as another such catastrophe, although the initial conditions are unique on this occasion. There are mass populations which there weren't before, deadly weapons and more critically I would think, a mass extinction of species due to a sudden shift in climatic conditions. So who knows, it looks like uncharted territory.

Agreed, there are other tipping processes which have been identified, I'm no expert though. One I was thinking of is the acidification of the oceans causing the calcium carbonate on the sea bed to dissolve, which then increases the acidification. There are large quantities of carbon down there.

Yes, I agree about survivalism. Your suggestion that such behaviour is only necessitated by great global catastrophes, is I fear over optimistic. Such events would probably bring about the extinction of humanity, or a reduction to a few hundred, or thousand of the most tenacious survivors.

It will require only small changes in climate, in the direction of warming, to result in a fall of civilisation and a return to a primitive human existence.

oh, so we're here again. I tell you what, if you answer my question then I'll answer yours. Or is your question only rhetorical?