The Uninhabitable Earth (2017)(nymag.com)
nymag.com
The Uninhabitable Earth (2017)
https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2017/07/climate-change-earth-too-hot-for-humans.html
108 comments
David Wallace Wells isn’t really sensationalizing beyond the title. A lot of the corresponding book (written after the article) is just a sober look at our best guess of the range of things that could happen with different emissions reductions hit - if no action is taken (and so far very little meaningful action has been taken), most of the Earth will be uninhabitable.
If a full scale society wide mobilization happens now, it will be very different, but even under the best case scenario climate related conflicts will dominate domestic and geopolitics by the late 2030s and into the rest of the century, and it will be very difficult for economic growth to exceed annual losses in infrastructure, housing, etc.
If a full scale society wide mobilization happens now, it will be very different, but even under the best case scenario climate related conflicts will dominate domestic and geopolitics by the late 2030s and into the rest of the century, and it will be very difficult for economic growth to exceed annual losses in infrastructure, housing, etc.
Didn't he amend this claim in a later article and now believes that we're headed for around a 3-3.5 degree heat increase, which won't render most of the earth uninhabitable? To be clear, I still think this is a terrifying number, which if it comes to pass will lead to the deaths of hundreds of millions of people, in particular in the developing world. I think we should do all that we can to bring the number down as much as possible.
[1] https://nymag.com/intelligencer/article/climate-change-after...
[1] https://nymag.com/intelligencer/article/climate-change-after...
> most of the Earth will be uninhabitable.
I find that extremely hard to believe since the dinosaurs evolved on an Earth that was far hotter than what we'll see this century (as much as 10°C warmer). Yes, they evolved over millions years from the previous mass extinction event, but the point is that plenty of plants and animals were able to survive in such a warm world. It wasn't mostly inhospitable to life.
Also because humans have existed in all sorts of environments from tundras to deserts for tens of thousands of years with stone-aged technology, including ice ages. The latest IPCC reports puts the upper limit of warming under 4°C.
I find that extremely hard to believe since the dinosaurs evolved on an Earth that was far hotter than what we'll see this century (as much as 10°C warmer). Yes, they evolved over millions years from the previous mass extinction event, but the point is that plenty of plants and animals were able to survive in such a warm world. It wasn't mostly inhospitable to life.
Also because humans have existed in all sorts of environments from tundras to deserts for tens of thousands of years with stone-aged technology, including ice ages. The latest IPCC reports puts the upper limit of warming under 4°C.
Uninhabitable as in unable to support modern civilization and population levels, probably in large part due to agriculture no longer being viable due to lack of water or weather related issues I'd assume.
That doesn't seem like a good assumption. The fossil record shows a lot of plants growing during previous global warm periods, enough to sustain many herbivores.
Yeah, grass and bushes and trees and shrubs can, have, and will continue to grow in any but the most extreme conditions sure and those are going to be fine for herbivores who can digest and extract nutrients from them, but for the food crops that we can eat, they need pretty specific climates for us to successfully cultivate them at the scale needed to sustain sizable populations.
The temperature isn't as important as the rate of change.
> Also because humans have existed in all sorts of environments from tundras to deserts for tens of thousands of years with stone-aged technology
The abstract perspective of some humans surviving somehow may not be as comforting as you think.
> Also because humans have existed in all sorts of environments from tundras to deserts for tens of thousands of years with stone-aged technology
The abstract perspective of some humans surviving somehow may not be as comforting as you think.
> The abstract perspective of some humans surviving somehow may not be as comforting as you think.
You are right. Humans will likely survive as a species, but not in the numbers and with the comfort we are currently used to.
You are right. Humans will likely survive as a species, but not in the numbers and with the comfort we are currently used to.
This is an extremely naive and ascientific hot take.
Dinosaurs are large creatures of a completely different order, not mammals. The sea ecosystem which had evolved over millions of years to deal with those temperatures is a completely different ecosystem from what we have now.
It's not about whether some humans can survive in difficult conditions, it's whether the current ecosystem can survive the unprecedentedly fast and rapid warming. And whether billions of humans will starve
Dinosaurs are large creatures of a completely different order, not mammals. The sea ecosystem which had evolved over millions of years to deal with those temperatures is a completely different ecosystem from what we have now.
It's not about whether some humans can survive in difficult conditions, it's whether the current ecosystem can survive the unprecedentedly fast and rapid warming. And whether billions of humans will starve
Mammals, reptiles and amphibians existed back then as well, as did a variety of plants. Uninhabitable sounds like most of the Earth turns into Venus, which won't happen. The current ecosystem will undergo change as some species adapt and thrive while others go extinct, migrate or are confined to smaller areas.
What this looks like for civilization and to what extent humans can mitigate is debatable. Climate models aren't civilization models.
What this looks like for civilization and to what extent humans can mitigate is debatable. Climate models aren't civilization models.
There's way too many options to put into even a book, let alone this message[0], but here are some things to consider:
• Burning all the known fossil fuels is more than enough to raise CO2 to the level necessary to severely impact (>25% slowdown) human cognition
• Although plants like CO2, they are often limited by other things instead
• Although we can build personal air supplies for us and greenhouses for plants to optimise each, this is more expensive than not causing the damage in the first place, so not doing the latter implies we will not do the former either
• We've messed up local environments more than once, and observed mass migrations as a result; while I'm fine with migrants and confused by those who aren't, I don't let my utopian ideals blind me to the political reality that this will end badly for many innocent people
• Quite a lot of property and infrastructure at low elevation and near the coast, combined with a significant risk that the threshold for total loss of various major ice sheets[1] is less than or equal to 4 C
[0] written 3h into a post flight cancellation queue for making it the airline's problem that I have work 2000 miles away in 5.5 hours and all the alternative flights they offer are booked out until a week tomorrow, so I apologise for anything weird in this comment
[1] I want to say Greenland, but I don't trust myself in this sleep-deprived state
• Burning all the known fossil fuels is more than enough to raise CO2 to the level necessary to severely impact (>25% slowdown) human cognition
• Although plants like CO2, they are often limited by other things instead
• Although we can build personal air supplies for us and greenhouses for plants to optimise each, this is more expensive than not causing the damage in the first place, so not doing the latter implies we will not do the former either
• We've messed up local environments more than once, and observed mass migrations as a result; while I'm fine with migrants and confused by those who aren't, I don't let my utopian ideals blind me to the political reality that this will end badly for many innocent people
• Quite a lot of property and infrastructure at low elevation and near the coast, combined with a significant risk that the threshold for total loss of various major ice sheets[1] is less than or equal to 4 C
[0] written 3h into a post flight cancellation queue for making it the airline's problem that I have work 2000 miles away in 5.5 hours and all the alternative flights they offer are booked out until a week tomorrow, so I apologise for anything weird in this comment
[1] I want to say Greenland, but I don't trust myself in this sleep-deprived state
Climate models might not be civilisation models, but climate has a very large role in the disruption of civilisation models, look at the Sumerians for evidence of climate/regional degradation and the impact that had on their civilisation. And mitigation is only one part of it, when shortages start, it's not just the climate you have to deal with, it's the humans, who are arguably far more vicious and erratic than any weather or climate.
> I find that extremely hard to believe
failed harvests around the world and famines killing millions are an absolute certainty.
failed harvests around the world and famines killing millions are an absolute certainty.
Millions yes, but probably livestock first, because a large part of Earth's agricultural production goes into feeding it, not humans directly.
Maybe not. The bulk of livestock are fed with marketed foods, whereas the vulnerable people are subsistence farmers who depend on their own crops.
I would like to make a wager
Would you indeed? I'll take any bet you'd care to place, the San Fernando Valley is sinking feet per year in places due to the volume of water we're pulling out of aquifers right now to support agriculture and the Colorado River doesn't even make it to the Gulf of Mexico anymore for identical reasons. That's the state of play right now at 0 degrees additional warming.
I would like to make a bet specifically targeting the parent comment's absolute certainty that there will be failed harvests that cause the deaths of millions. When do we expect this to happen? How much time would have to pass without it happening to cause you to reconsider the inevitability of this specific prediction?
Ok, $100 USD says that a crop failure resulting in at least 2 million excess deaths happens within the next 20 years, let’s round to <= 31st December, 2042.
Of course by then $100 USD will have the purchasing power of ~$10 USD, so it’s not the riskiest bet on my part.
Of course by then $100 USD will have the purchasing power of ~$10 USD, so it’s not the riskiest bet on my part.
So these will be starvation deaths? I like looking at excess deaths, so we need to look at the base rate of starvation, and I'd like to go per capita, as I expect population to continue to increase substantially and more people to die of all causes year over year as a result. Can we do $10k?
Most of them will probably have disease as the proximate cause. Dysentery and/or infectious diseases that in well-nourished populations isn't too much of a problem.
Some of them may have armed conflict as the proximate cause. The civil war in Syria had as one of its triggers a prolonged drought with associated crop failures, partly attributed to climate change.
Some of them may have armed conflict as the proximate cause. The civil war in Syria had as one of its triggers a prolonged drought with associated crop failures, partly attributed to climate change.
Right, I think we can come up with an agreeable or used an established definition of famine deaths that includes these. I'm taking a closer look at this our world in data page to try to come up with well-defined terms.
https://ourworldindata.org/famines
https://ourworldindata.org/famines
During the Little Ice Age in Europe there generally was a higher death rate (shorter life expectancy). Food production per capita declined, and while most people didn't outright starve to death they became weaker and more vulnerable to disease.
Given the dual famines in Somalia and Ethiopia right now I expect we should hit the millions dead target within the next 18 months. How long were you thinking we'd have to wait?
Oh yeah I forgot about that, that could do it. Maybe that's where the certainty comes from. My genuine belief is that there will continue be droughts and wars that cause famines and the excess deaths that come with them, but that the overall trend of famine-related deaths per capita will continue to trend downwards despite climate change. I think war and other geopolitical disruptions are the greatest threats to food security.
If you believe famine is going to trend down I encourage you to take a hard look at what percentage of arable land globally is currently in use (we're close to maxed out), how much of that agriculture is dependent upon non-renewable water sources (aquifers), or other water sources that will be impacted by warming. Toss in topsoil depletion, erosion, and desertification. I am fairly certain that a sober look at these things will paint a much grimmer picture of the future.
Yes, this is exactly where I disagree strongly. Malthus and his imitators have all been horribly wrong. I will concede that there is ultimately a finite amount of stuff in the universe, but looking at any apparent hard limits like you suggest has been a recipe for undue pessimism. For example, I don't think "arable land" is a fixed resource.
Anything seems possible when you don't know what you're talking about. There is no spare agricultural capacity to be had anywhere on this planet and the required inputs are both not something we can replace and dwindling.
And completely different from 'uninhabitable'.
It’s mostly about the rate of change. If we went to where we’re going over a hundred thousand years or even a few thousand, ecosystems could adapt, but we’re digging up and burning hundreds of millions of years of carbon in a century
We aren't dinosaurs. The end of the abnormally cold climate that we (and other mammals) have enjoyed for the past 2.5 million years (aka Quaternary Ice Age) is likely to cause the Earth to become uninhabitable again to us and most land mammals outside the poles (and poles aren't great with their months-long days and nights).
And while this is still unlikely (and we were overdue for a colder, more normal for our Ice Age climate with the end of our interglacial, give or take a few thousand years), we are certainly turning up the heat in an alarming fashion ! (P.S.: the risk comes from the self-reinforcing feedback loops some of which the article describes.)
And while this is still unlikely (and we were overdue for a colder, more normal for our Ice Age climate with the end of our interglacial, give or take a few thousand years), we are certainly turning up the heat in an alarming fashion ! (P.S.: the risk comes from the self-reinforcing feedback loops some of which the article describes.)
un-habitable for us, as modern human using technology.
We're gonna be fine as a specie. Just not like that.
I think we should welcome it.
I think we should welcome it.
Lomborg made a lot of a well known science trope: you can dash to the door with the current technology, or wait for the 2nd to market and use less of them, more cheaply, for greater effect. The problem is he didn't consider a couple of things. Firstly, it takes competitive tension to derive a second to market and the full tenor of his proposal removed it. Secondly, it assumed there was no accelleration in the problem. You can arrive late at the 2nd to market, in a worse world than the one you could have been fire-fighting in.
Leslie Groves said it best, about choices of how to proceed in the Manhatten project: "do both" -And in fact, this turned out to be key because using thermal diffusion as a feed stock enrichment to the calutrons turned out to be critical for time dependent delivery: Massive improvement in delivery because they didn't cheapen the investment.
I personally would have had no problem with CCS, BioChar and Solar/Wind being pursued aggressively at broadly equal levels of funding, and then looking back to decide which one had the best bang for buck. Instead, CCS was massively over funded against evidence of fugitive gas leak problems, Biochar was sold to the idea of "not having to do the others" and as a bribe to farmers, and both CCS and Biochar backers howled down funding for wind and solar claiming it was green nonsense.
Leslie Groves said it best, about choices of how to proceed in the Manhatten project: "do both" -And in fact, this turned out to be key because using thermal diffusion as a feed stock enrichment to the calutrons turned out to be critical for time dependent delivery: Massive improvement in delivery because they didn't cheapen the investment.
I personally would have had no problem with CCS, BioChar and Solar/Wind being pursued aggressively at broadly equal levels of funding, and then looking back to decide which one had the best bang for buck. Instead, CCS was massively over funded against evidence of fugitive gas leak problems, Biochar was sold to the idea of "not having to do the others" and as a bribe to farmers, and both CCS and Biochar backers howled down funding for wind and solar claiming it was green nonsense.
Quick reply with no links to hand, but I keep up to date with climate science (at a layperson's level).
In short - I haven't read the compressed article, but I did read Wells' book and followed up most of the refs in detail. Yes, parts of it were exaggerated. Little outright false, but he tended to take worst-case scenarios, particularly regarding the chance of vast methane burps from tundra, etc. It was a reasonable if tendentious summary of what could happen, but it didn't describe the most likely trajectory. It was more like a possible black swan warning.
But much has changed since. Somewhat to our advantage on the basic science - temperature sensitivity to CO2 increases seems to be towards the lower end of earlier IPCC estimates. It also seems that earth's systems are more responsive to reductions in CO2 emissions, so there's a better payoff to actions we do take. Renewable energy costs have reduced much faster than earlier projections suggested.
One significant factor is worse - extreme weather events are worsening much faster than climate models had prevously suggested. The on-the-ground effects of climate change are worse per degree of increase than we thought. The higher-end temp rises once talked about (4 degrees plus) are now all but ruled out.
So, no, we're not technically fucked. But 30 years wasted since we understood climate change dangers at least in outline have taken their toll. We have made it much harder to keep the globe's temperature within limits that our societies can deal with than if we had just thrown a few fossil fuel suits in prison 3 decades ago (semi-joking).
Our political chances of staying within the 1.5C (which isn't a magic number, just an estimate of the temp rise whose costs we can reasonably deal with) are in my estimation miniscule. But political guesses aren't worth much.
No-one is really confident that our political systems can deal with the vast numbers of refugees and disasters resulting from a likely 3C end-of-century rise. Our best projection isn't anything silly like human extinction or complete global collapse. More a sort of increasing dystopia: more wars, more disposessed, more hunger. And ever fewer nonhumans.
In short - I haven't read the compressed article, but I did read Wells' book and followed up most of the refs in detail. Yes, parts of it were exaggerated. Little outright false, but he tended to take worst-case scenarios, particularly regarding the chance of vast methane burps from tundra, etc. It was a reasonable if tendentious summary of what could happen, but it didn't describe the most likely trajectory. It was more like a possible black swan warning.
But much has changed since. Somewhat to our advantage on the basic science - temperature sensitivity to CO2 increases seems to be towards the lower end of earlier IPCC estimates. It also seems that earth's systems are more responsive to reductions in CO2 emissions, so there's a better payoff to actions we do take. Renewable energy costs have reduced much faster than earlier projections suggested.
One significant factor is worse - extreme weather events are worsening much faster than climate models had prevously suggested. The on-the-ground effects of climate change are worse per degree of increase than we thought. The higher-end temp rises once talked about (4 degrees plus) are now all but ruled out.
So, no, we're not technically fucked. But 30 years wasted since we understood climate change dangers at least in outline have taken their toll. We have made it much harder to keep the globe's temperature within limits that our societies can deal with than if we had just thrown a few fossil fuel suits in prison 3 decades ago (semi-joking).
Our political chances of staying within the 1.5C (which isn't a magic number, just an estimate of the temp rise whose costs we can reasonably deal with) are in my estimation miniscule. But political guesses aren't worth much.
No-one is really confident that our political systems can deal with the vast numbers of refugees and disasters resulting from a likely 3C end-of-century rise. Our best projection isn't anything silly like human extinction or complete global collapse. More a sort of increasing dystopia: more wars, more disposessed, more hunger. And ever fewer nonhumans.
TIL: ten·den·tious /tenˈdenSHəs/
adjective: tendentious
expressing or intending to promote a particular cause or point of view, especially a controversial one.
"a tendentious reading of history"Extreme weather events are not actually worsening if you look at longer time scales. The damage from extreme weather events is worsening because we've built more in vulnerable areas. Hurricanes, for example, have gone through natural cycles lasting centuries or millennia before any sort of anthropogenic global climate change. We had been living in a period of relative calm and now appear to be reverting to the mean.
https://www.americanscientist.org/article/uncovering-prehist...
https://www.americanscientist.org/article/uncovering-prehist...
Nonsense. See Ch11 of the last IPCC report. The evidence that increases in global adverse weather events are (as was predicted decades ago) and will continue to be driven by increases in global temperature is entirely clear and hardly disputed. If you really think the article you cited even attempts to refute (let alone successfully) that body of evidence, then you haven't read (or understood) either.
The recent UN "gap report" concludes that we are on track for 2.7 degrees of warming by end of century, even assuming the recent commitments made by countries at COP26. So far too little is being done, and 2.7 degrees of warming is quite catastrophic.
Considering most climate models even from 30 years ago have been reasonably accurate (within 10%) there isnt much chance that the predictions are totally incorrect.
[1] https://www.unep.org/resources/emissions-gap-report-2021
Considering most climate models even from 30 years ago have been reasonably accurate (within 10%) there isnt much chance that the predictions are totally incorrect.
[1] https://www.unep.org/resources/emissions-gap-report-2021
We are fucked, not because the problem can’t be solved, but simply because we aren’t seriously addressing it. The window for solving the problem is still open but closing rapidly.
Lomborg is not taken seriously by other climate scientists. For good reason.
Here's just a few counter-arguments: https://www.lse.ac.uk/granthaminstitute/news/a-closer-examin...
Here's just a few counter-arguments: https://www.lse.ac.uk/granthaminstitute/news/a-closer-examin...
Q: Is Bjorn Lomborg a climate scientist?
Answer: Lomborg is not a climate scientist or economist and has published little or no peer-reviewed research on environmental or climate policy. His extensive and extensively documented, errors and misrepresentations, which are aimed at a lay audience, "follow a general pattern" of minimizing the need to cut carbon emissions.
Answer: Lomborg is not a climate scientist or economist and has published little or no peer-reviewed research on environmental or climate policy. His extensive and extensively documented, errors and misrepresentations, which are aimed at a lay audience, "follow a general pattern" of minimizing the need to cut carbon emissions.
My tip, move somewhere where the heat is dry in summer. Get a house with good AC and upp on a slope to avoid rain bombs and flash flooding.
Fires, floods and extreme storms are one thing, but wet bulb temperature events are what really terrify me.
Fires, floods and extreme storms are one thing, but wet bulb temperature events are what really terrify me.
Fires and floods are up there
in the scare factor for me.
I've read places, that because of the actions we've been taking, such as the Inflation Reduction Act, and others, that we've taken ourselves away from the super fucked category and placed into a more reasonable one. When these alarmists pieces came out they were accurate, however, because of all the alarm, we've legitimately changed the future outcome we were facing. It's still important we keep at it and reduce our GHG emissions, but I don't think we are as royally fucked as we once were. I hope this offers some(?) clarity.
A couple of caveats about the IRA. Firstly, an Act does nothing in itself. Everything depends on execution, and whether or not forecasts of the Acts effects were good. I know I'm stating the obvious there, but it gets papered over frequently when Congressional victories are declared. Secondly, the US is only one nation. The most influential in terms of global ethos-and-markets-setting, yes, but there's a whole world out here.
I don't personally believe much will improve globally without stronger global governance. I also think the latter is possible, but unlikely within the next couple of centuries. And we probably will be well and truly fucked by then.
I don't personally believe much will improve globally without stronger global governance. I also think the latter is possible, but unlikely within the next couple of centuries. And we probably will be well and truly fucked by then.
> away from the super fucked category and placed into a more reasonable one
So, we're reasonably fucked.
So, we're reasonably fucked.
> Is this article sensationalist?
Yes. The idea that a couple of degrees rise in temperature makes most of the Earth uninhabitable is nonsense. Two simple observations will help to put all of this in a better perspective:
(1) The range of human habitation on Earth is limited by cold, not heat: the hottest areas of Earth are inhabited; the coldest are not. (Also, in the range that is inhabited, humans find it more difficult to adapt to cold than to heat--extreme cold causes more deaths.)
(2) The temperature rise is not uniform over Earth; in the hottest regions (the tropics), the temperature rise is much less than the average, while in the coldest regions (the poles), it is significantly more than average.
Putting these two observations together makes it clear that the overall effect of a couple of degrees rise in average temperature will most likely be to increase the portion of Earth that is habitable for humans, not decrease it. Adding in the fact that humans can and will adapt to these changes, just as we have been adapting to change throughout human history, makes it even less likely that the net impact will be negative--if only the alarmists will stop trying to get huge amounts of resources squandered on "mitigation" efforts that will cost far more than any putative benefits they might provide.
Yes. The idea that a couple of degrees rise in temperature makes most of the Earth uninhabitable is nonsense. Two simple observations will help to put all of this in a better perspective:
(1) The range of human habitation on Earth is limited by cold, not heat: the hottest areas of Earth are inhabited; the coldest are not. (Also, in the range that is inhabited, humans find it more difficult to adapt to cold than to heat--extreme cold causes more deaths.)
(2) The temperature rise is not uniform over Earth; in the hottest regions (the tropics), the temperature rise is much less than the average, while in the coldest regions (the poles), it is significantly more than average.
Putting these two observations together makes it clear that the overall effect of a couple of degrees rise in average temperature will most likely be to increase the portion of Earth that is habitable for humans, not decrease it. Adding in the fact that humans can and will adapt to these changes, just as we have been adapting to change throughout human history, makes it even less likely that the net impact will be negative--if only the alarmists will stop trying to get huge amounts of resources squandered on "mitigation" efforts that will cost far more than any putative benefits they might provide.
The focus on temperature is a bit off in my opinion. Warming the planet by a few degrees centigrade should be thought of as massively increasing energy into the weather system. This will necessitate a period of dramatic “turbulence” (wild local swings) while a new equilibrium is established. This will potentially cause massive disruption in the world order.
There is also the fact that making areas like Siberia more habitable in terms of temperature isn’t exactly helpful if it doesn’t have soil conducive to growing food or for enough infrastructure to house large numbers of people. It’s a much better investment of time/wealth to spend it on mitigation than what humanity currently focuses on.
Life on Earth will continue regardless of what we do. What may not continue is how we currently live.
There is also the fact that making areas like Siberia more habitable in terms of temperature isn’t exactly helpful if it doesn’t have soil conducive to growing food or for enough infrastructure to house large numbers of people. It’s a much better investment of time/wealth to spend it on mitigation than what humanity currently focuses on.
Life on Earth will continue regardless of what we do. What may not continue is how we currently live.
> Warming the planet by a few degrees centigrade should be thought of as massively increasing energy into the weather system.
But it doesn't, not "massively". "Warming" here means increasing air temperatures, but the atmosphere is tiny considered as a heat sink.
> This will necessitate a period of dramatic “turbulence” (wild local swings) while a new equilibrium is established. This will potentially cause massive disruption in the world order.
Alarmists might claim this, but there isn't any evidence for it. A far more likely source of disruption in the world order is alarmist claims themselves.
> making areas like Siberia more habitable in terms of temperature isn’t exactly helpful if it doesn’t have soil conducive to growing food or for enough infrastructure to house large numbers of people.
People already manage to grow things in Siberia (and in some colder parts of Canada) despite the temperature. That will only improve as the region warms.
As for infrastructure, that's what adaptation is for: as more people want to move there, you build the infrastructure. Just like we do now in other areas that people want to move to. This has been going on for as long as humans have moved around the planet.
> What may not continue is how we currently live.
"How we currently live" has already changed massively in the past century or two. Of course it will continue to change, and of course people should be aware of that and should be planning accordingly. But there is no need for alarmism about it.
But it doesn't, not "massively". "Warming" here means increasing air temperatures, but the atmosphere is tiny considered as a heat sink.
> This will necessitate a period of dramatic “turbulence” (wild local swings) while a new equilibrium is established. This will potentially cause massive disruption in the world order.
Alarmists might claim this, but there isn't any evidence for it. A far more likely source of disruption in the world order is alarmist claims themselves.
> making areas like Siberia more habitable in terms of temperature isn’t exactly helpful if it doesn’t have soil conducive to growing food or for enough infrastructure to house large numbers of people.
People already manage to grow things in Siberia (and in some colder parts of Canada) despite the temperature. That will only improve as the region warms.
As for infrastructure, that's what adaptation is for: as more people want to move there, you build the infrastructure. Just like we do now in other areas that people want to move to. This has been going on for as long as humans have moved around the planet.
> What may not continue is how we currently live.
"How we currently live" has already changed massively in the past century or two. Of course it will continue to change, and of course people should be aware of that and should be planning accordingly. But there is no need for alarmism about it.
I don’t think you know what you are talking about. It’s hard to build adequate infrastructure on melting permafrost. One can’t naively think, “we’ll just build what is needed” without taking into consideration the conditions. Humans have not always done this as we migrated throughout our history at the scale that would be required if hundreds of millions of people migrate to Siberia. The supply chain issues these past two years shows how fragile our globalized system is to shocks. Increasing the air temperature a few degrees centigrade means massively increasing the energy into the weather system.
> I don’t think you know what you are talking about.
I don't think you read my post very carefully.
> if hundreds of millions of people migrate to Siberia
Who said hundreds of millions? All I said was that the habitable range would be much more likely to expand with warming than to contract. That doesn't require that we shove a huge number of people into the edge of the new habitable range.
> The supply chain issues these past two years shows how fragile our globalized system is to shocks.
That has nothing to do with climate change and everything to do with how dysfunctional and corrupt our political systems are. The way to fix that is to fix our political systems, not to wring our hands about climate change.
I don't think you read my post very carefully.
> if hundreds of millions of people migrate to Siberia
Who said hundreds of millions? All I said was that the habitable range would be much more likely to expand with warming than to contract. That doesn't require that we shove a huge number of people into the edge of the new habitable range.
> The supply chain issues these past two years shows how fragile our globalized system is to shocks.
That has nothing to do with climate change and everything to do with how dysfunctional and corrupt our political systems are. The way to fix that is to fix our political systems, not to wring our hands about climate change.
I think you don’t comprehend what is written. You are stuck on a narrative and go with it regardless of what is written. An example of this.
Clearly I brought supply chain issues as a way of demonstrating fragility in the global system. It was obviously used as an example to demonstrate that it doesn’t take much disruption to cause shocks to the system. The obvious reason for mentioning this is to show that it is quite plausible for climate change to cause major disruptions in how societies work. Your response is: This has nothing to do with climate change…. You failed to understand the clearly made point.
Another example. You mention that throughout human history migrations have happened and humans built societies where they migrated. I point out that the scale that this would have to be done under scenarios envisioned being a consequence or global warming is unprecedented. There 8 billion people now and mass migrations on the scale that would be needed have never happened before. Also, very few people actually grow food these days and so mass migrations would need massive amounts of new infrastructure in conditions that are not conducive to building said infrastructure. Your response to this is a non sequitor.
You haven’t thought through the implications and clearly you don’t have the slightest idea of what you are talking about.
Clearly I brought supply chain issues as a way of demonstrating fragility in the global system. It was obviously used as an example to demonstrate that it doesn’t take much disruption to cause shocks to the system. The obvious reason for mentioning this is to show that it is quite plausible for climate change to cause major disruptions in how societies work. Your response is: This has nothing to do with climate change…. You failed to understand the clearly made point.
Another example. You mention that throughout human history migrations have happened and humans built societies where they migrated. I point out that the scale that this would have to be done under scenarios envisioned being a consequence or global warming is unprecedented. There 8 billion people now and mass migrations on the scale that would be needed have never happened before. Also, very few people actually grow food these days and so mass migrations would need massive amounts of new infrastructure in conditions that are not conducive to building said infrastructure. Your response to this is a non sequitor.
You haven’t thought through the implications and clearly you don’t have the slightest idea of what you are talking about.
> I think you don’t comprehend what is written.
I comprehend what you have written just fine. I just recognize, as apparently you don't, that you are responding to a straw man, and failing to respond to the actual points I have made.
> clearly you don’t have the slightest idea of what you are talking about.
I think the same about you, so it seems unlikely that further discussion will be fruitful.
I comprehend what you have written just fine. I just recognize, as apparently you don't, that you are responding to a straw man, and failing to respond to the actual points I have made.
> clearly you don’t have the slightest idea of what you are talking about.
I think the same about you, so it seems unlikely that further discussion will be fruitful.
[deleted]
> The supply chain issues these past two years shows how fragile our globalized system is to shocks.
Is a bunker fragile just because a direct hit by a nuke will destroy it?
Is a bunker fragile just because a direct hit by a nuke will destroy it?
But the article doesn't disagree about that ?
The issue is that a couple of degrees is likely to be reached this mid-century, and things might continue to get worse from there.
So the article explores the less likely scenarios that might happen in the higher temperature ranges.
The issue is that a couple of degrees is likely to be reached this mid-century, and things might continue to get worse from there.
So the article explores the less likely scenarios that might happen in the higher temperature ranges.
> The issue is that a couple of degrees is likely to be reached this mid-century
A couple of degrees from the "pre-industrial" baseline, which is as of something like 1750, not now. From now to mid-century is only a couple of tenths of a degree. In other words, we have already adapted to most of the "couple of degrees" of change.
> things might continue to get worse from there.
"Continue to get worse" implies that things are already getting worse and have been over the past few centuries while the "couple of degrees" of temperature rise was taking place. That's not the case.
> the article explores the less likely scenarios
Which all fail to take human adaptation into account. That has always been the problem with alarmist predictions like this.
A couple of degrees from the "pre-industrial" baseline, which is as of something like 1750, not now. From now to mid-century is only a couple of tenths of a degree. In other words, we have already adapted to most of the "couple of degrees" of change.
> things might continue to get worse from there.
"Continue to get worse" implies that things are already getting worse and have been over the past few centuries while the "couple of degrees" of temperature rise was taking place. That's not the case.
> the article explores the less likely scenarios
Which all fail to take human adaptation into account. That has always been the problem with alarmist predictions like this.
>extreme cold causes more deaths [than extreme heat]
How would you convince a skeptic that that is actually true?
How would you convince a skeptic that that is actually true?
https://www.lomborg.com/the-heresy-of-heat-and-cold-deaths
Or, if you are wondering if Lomborg is a partisan source, look at the study in The Lancet that he references:
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanplh/article/PIIS2542-5...
Or, if you are wondering if Lomborg is a partisan source, look at the study in The Lancet that he references:
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanplh/article/PIIS2542-5...
Thanks.
The problem I have with this article is that it straight up calls the permian mass extintion event as induced by global warming changes.
Being generous, that is -at best- a lie of omission. The Permian event was caused by massive lava flows from tectonic changes and a rise on the lava stratum to to lower end of the earth crust " The scientific consensus is that the main cause of extinction was the large amount of carbon dioxide emitted by the volcanic eruptions" [1]
Its really hard to take articles like this seriously when they play so hard and fast with the facts to fit their narrative.
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permian%E2%80%93Triassic_ext...
Being generous, that is -at best- a lie of omission. The Permian event was caused by massive lava flows from tectonic changes and a rise on the lava stratum to to lower end of the earth crust " The scientific consensus is that the main cause of extinction was the large amount of carbon dioxide emitted by the volcanic eruptions" [1]
Its really hard to take articles like this seriously when they play so hard and fast with the facts to fit their narrative.
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permian%E2%80%93Triassic_ext...
> Bjørn Lomborg
Not a reliable source at all. He’s been linked to climate deniers for more than 20 years.
Not a reliable source at all. He’s been linked to climate deniers for more than 20 years.
That is false. Bjørn Lomborg has explicitly stated that he thinks anthropogenic global climate change is a real phenomenon, and that he accepts the science in IPCC reports.
https://www.ipcc.ch/
https://lexfridman.com/climate-change-debate/
https://www.ipcc.ch/
https://lexfridman.com/climate-change-debate/
It’s true, and some of us have memories like elephants and remember how Lomborg has been at this for years. Lomborg is playing the climate denial delay tactic, and since his first book was published in 1998, he has been trying to slow, stall, and put the brakes on any binding mitigation.[0] This is one of many standard climate denial tactics. They admit that climate change is happening, but they don’t support doing anything about it. Furthermore, Lomborg has been accused by the Danish Committees on Scientific Dishonesty (DCSD) of fabricating data, cherry picking results, deliberately misusing statistical methods, distorting conclusions, plagiarism, and deliberate misinterpretation.[1] We also know that Lomborg has been funded by billionaires like Singer and the Kochs.[2][3] Lomborg is not and never has been a climate scientist. He’s a climate denier playing the long game.
[0] In Wall Street Journal op-ed, Bjorn Lomborg urges delay with misleading stats https://skepticalscience.com/lomborg-WSJ-debunk-CSRRT.html
[1] Annual Report 2003 Danish Committees Scientific Dishonesty. https://web.archive.org/web/20081217162831/http://en.fi.dk/p...
[2] Bjorn Lomborg Think Tank Funder Revealed As Billionaire Republican 'Vulture Capitalist' Paul Singer https://www.desmog.com/2015/02/05/exclusive-bjorn-lomborg-th...
[3] The Millions Behind Bjorn Lomborg's Copenhagen Consensus Center US Think Tank https://www.desmog.com/2014/06/25/millions-behind-bjorn-lomb...
[0] In Wall Street Journal op-ed, Bjorn Lomborg urges delay with misleading stats https://skepticalscience.com/lomborg-WSJ-debunk-CSRRT.html
[1] Annual Report 2003 Danish Committees Scientific Dishonesty. https://web.archive.org/web/20081217162831/http://en.fi.dk/p...
[2] Bjorn Lomborg Think Tank Funder Revealed As Billionaire Republican 'Vulture Capitalist' Paul Singer https://www.desmog.com/2015/02/05/exclusive-bjorn-lomborg-th...
[3] The Millions Behind Bjorn Lomborg's Copenhagen Consensus Center US Think Tank https://www.desmog.com/2014/06/25/millions-behind-bjorn-lomb...
Lomborg is not a climate change denier. You are a liar.
You’re mistaken. I suggest you hit the books and study the phenomenon. Climate disinformation has three components: denial, doubt, and delay. Lomborg is generally categorized as a climate denier because he deliberately engages in delay tactics to further the goals of the deniers. And the fact that he has been funded by Singer and the Kochs puts him in the category of climate deniers, each of whom are active using different strategies (denial, doubt, delay) to reach the same goal, namely, to continue business as usual and keep using fossil fuels to the detriment of the climate. You may also wish to review the work of Naomi Oreskes, Jane Mayer, and Anne Nelson, who have spent decades documenting these disinformation tactics in their collective work. Lomborg is not a trusted authority or expert in the domain of climate science, and anyone who tells us otherwise is ignoring the evidence.
There you go, lying again. Lomborg has specifically advocated for taking urgent action to deal with climate change. You cannot honestly claim that is denial.
> Lomborg has specifically advocated for taking urgent action
Lomborg has spent the last 24 years putting roadblocks in the way of taking action, all the while falsely claiming he supports it. This has been covered widely for decades. "While not explicit climate denial, [he] undermines climate action and the fight against the climate crisis." That helps the deniers meet their stated goals, and therefore is indistinguishable from denial by itself. "He attacks renewable energy, notably solar and wind, and other climate solutions while ignoring or downplaying the costs of fossil fuels and the effects of greenhouse gasses- melting ice, sea level rise, droughts, tropical storms, wildfires and other extreme weather events".
https://youtu.be/Ol7GLx4WpAo
If you fall so easily for climate disinformation from the likes of Bjorn Lomborg, then you probably need to work on your critical thinking skills.
Lomborg has spent the last 24 years putting roadblocks in the way of taking action, all the while falsely claiming he supports it. This has been covered widely for decades. "While not explicit climate denial, [he] undermines climate action and the fight against the climate crisis." That helps the deniers meet their stated goals, and therefore is indistinguishable from denial by itself. "He attacks renewable energy, notably solar and wind, and other climate solutions while ignoring or downplaying the costs of fossil fuels and the effects of greenhouse gasses- melting ice, sea level rise, droughts, tropical storms, wildfires and other extreme weather events".
https://youtu.be/Ol7GLx4WpAo
If you fall so easily for climate disinformation from the likes of Bjorn Lomborg, then you probably need to work on your critical thinking skills.
At least, he argued that there were other equally plausible explanations for climate change back in the late 90s and early 00s. He has been dragging his feet all the way like a good follower of the tobacco industry's playbook.
"Us being fucked" is not uniformly distributed across the globe, but island nations are being forced to relocate their people and some places are seeing increasing death tolls from heat waves. The whole system is getting stressed. The rising tide that was lifting the destitute from poverty seems likely to saddle them with the worst climate consequences. In the west, we'll mostly shrug off high gas prices and continue to sleepwalk, occasionally stumble into oblivion. We're gonna use every ounce of fossil fuels and history does not stop in 2100. Incidentally, 2100 is closer to now than 1940. So buckle up, tikes.
> this article is sensationalizing the issue
Yes, 3.5 degrees increase won't make the earth uninhabitable. 50 Million years ago it was 10-15 degrees hotter and we survived it.
Data: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geologic_temperature_record#/m...
Yes, 3.5 degrees increase won't make the earth uninhabitable. 50 Million years ago it was 10-15 degrees hotter and we survived it.
Data: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geologic_temperature_record#/m...
The 10°C higher average temperature during the Paleocene Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM) is a great counter example to the alarmist view. I have not seen a very persuasive argument for why it's different now. If anything, there's video clip of Schrag (Harvard climate scientist) admitting that 10°C is perfectly fine, but that it's the rate of change that's alarming. I disagree with this too, because the story of humanity is the story of migration and adaptation (out of Africa, bronze age collapse, population bottlenecks, etc.) -- and these have nothing to do with man-made climate change.
https://youtu.be/sZsnAdGaxkY?t=3037
https://youtu.be/sZsnAdGaxkY?t=3037
> and we survived it
FSVO "we".
FSVO "we".
> this article is sensationalizing the issue
I think the point of the article is that the authors regard the issue as grossly under-sensationalized.
I think the point of the article is that the authors regard the issue as grossly under-sensationalized.
[deleted]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planetary_boundaries
There are more than enough apocalypses to go around even if the optimists are right about this one.
There are more than enough apocalypses to go around even if the optimists are right about this one.
It seems more than likely that multiple of those will occur since we as a species tend not to change our behavior if a large enough profit/cost is involved.
"We will probably go on solving our problems by borrowing from the future until we are forced by the consequences of our own behavior to change." Octavia E. Butler
Yeah, aside from the much bleaker predictions of the article, we shouldn't forget just how exceptional and fragile the current interglacial is : we were already overdue for the end of it (give or take a few thousand years) !
First, Wallace-Wells has written much since this, and his latest stuff is considerably less grim. Not sunshine and rainbows or even pleasant, mind you, but less grim nonetheless.
Second, here's the best summary of Wallace-Well's piece I have seen over the years:
https://climatefeedback.org/evaluation/scientists-explain-wh...
Second, here's the best summary of Wallace-Well's piece I have seen over the years:
https://climatefeedback.org/evaluation/scientists-explain-wh...
The article you linked is representative of the critiques which prompted Wallace-Wells to offer the updated, annotated version of the article. I have no idea why the OP didn't share that version of the article instead, but the link to it is right at the top of what they did share.
> In the sugarcane region of El Salvador, as much as one-fifth of the population has chronic kidney disease, including over a quarter of the men, the presumed result of dehydration from working the fields they were able to comfortably harvest as recently as two decades ago.
This is preposterous for so many reasons. High blood sugar and hypertension are causes #1 and #2 for CKD, and El Salvador, like the rest of the world and Latin America in particular, is suffering from the epidemic of metabolic syndrome. And what percentage of Salvadorans do they expect us to think work the fields? (When only 20% work in the agricultural sector.) And what temperature difference makes the difference between comfort and injurious dehydration? Which presumably cannot be compensated for by drinking more water? And who said dehydration is a significant contributor to CKD?
https://www.niddk.nih.gov/health-information/kidney-disease/...
Perhaps this article was re-submitted to portray climate activists as alarmist and unconcerned with the truth?
This is preposterous for so many reasons. High blood sugar and hypertension are causes #1 and #2 for CKD, and El Salvador, like the rest of the world and Latin America in particular, is suffering from the epidemic of metabolic syndrome. And what percentage of Salvadorans do they expect us to think work the fields? (When only 20% work in the agricultural sector.) And what temperature difference makes the difference between comfort and injurious dehydration? Which presumably cannot be compensated for by drinking more water? And who said dehydration is a significant contributor to CKD?
https://www.niddk.nih.gov/health-information/kidney-disease/...
Perhaps this article was re-submitted to portray climate activists as alarmist and unconcerned with the truth?
This particular CKD issue is inexplicable despite multiple finished and ongoing studies. Several compared rates in adjacent Latin American countries with the only environmental difference being average temperature (same rate of exposure to pesticide/herbicide, similar cohorts compared). It's not a settled issued as far as I know.
Earth will continue to be suitable for life as we know it, same biochemistry. The most important question is how we are going to adapt. Does anybody know of any science fiction which is not silly-cliche-postapolcalyptic and that deals with climate warming scenarios?
"Termination Shock" by Neal Stephenson (2021) explores how geo-engineering might be adopted. It doesn't explore the long term consequences, though.
>List of dates predicted for apocalyptic events
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_dates_predicted_for_ap...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_dates_predicted_for_ap...
Don't you find it problematic to put the research in climate sciences on the same level as predictions by Charles Manson and other cult leaders?
I like your line of questioning here.
Yes, I find it problematic. Questioning climate doom is nearly a heresy. Is it cult like?
At what point do we take those who implore us to "believe the science" literally?
When does this become scientism, a system of belief rather than science, a system of rational inquiry?
Perhaps there really is an impending apocalypse. Thus far doomsaying hasn't panned out. Doomsday fears have been used to rationalize financial schemes and power grabs. But then, perhaps this time is different.
Yes, I find it problematic. Questioning climate doom is nearly a heresy. Is it cult like?
At what point do we take those who implore us to "believe the science" literally?
When does this become scientism, a system of belief rather than science, a system of rational inquiry?
Perhaps there really is an impending apocalypse. Thus far doomsaying hasn't panned out. Doomsday fears have been used to rationalize financial schemes and power grabs. But then, perhaps this time is different.
Comments from when it was published: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14734865
It’s worth clicking through to see the version of the article with annotations. The link is near the top.
I am 55 years old now. I remember all the doomsday prophets of the 70's (and after).
1. 1967: Dire Famine Forecast By 1975
2. 1969: Everyone Will Disappear In a Cloud Of Blue Steam By 1989 (1969)
3. 1970: Ice Age By 2000
4. 1970: America Subject to Water Rationing By 1974 and Food Rationing By 1980
5. 1971: New Ice Age Coming By 2020 or 2030
6. 1972: New Ice Age By 2070
7. 1974: Space Satellites Show New Ice Age Coming Fast
8. 1974: Another Ice Age?
9. 1974: Ozone Depletion a ‘Great Peril to Life (data and graph)
10. 1976: Scientific Consensus Planet Cooling, Famines imminent
11. 1980: Acid Rain Kills Life In Lakes (additional link)
12. 1978: No End in Sight to 30-Year Cooling Trend (additional link)
13. 1988: Regional Droughts (that never happened) in 1990s
14. 1988: Temperatures in DC Will Hit Record Highs
15. 1988: Maldive Islands will Be Underwater by 2018 (they’re not)
16. 1989: Rising Sea Levels will Obliterate Nations if Nothing Done by 2000
17. 1989: New York City’s West Side Highway Underwater by 2019 (it’s not)
18. 2000: Children Won’t Know what Snow Is
19. 2002: Famine In 10 Years If We Don’t Give Up Eating Fish, Meat, and Dairy
20. 2004: Britain will Be Siberia by 2024
21. 2008: Arctic will Be Ice Free by 2018
22. 2008: Climate Genius Al Gore Predicts Ice-Free Arctic by 2013
23. 2009: Climate Genius Prince Charles Says we Have 96 Months to Save World
24. 2009: UK Prime Minister Says 50 Days to ‘Save The Planet From Catastrophe’
25. 2009: Climate Genius Al Gore Moves 2013 Prediction of Ice-Free Arctic to 2014
26. 2013: Arctic Ice-Free by 2015 (additional link)
27. 2014: Only 500 Days Before ‘Climate Chaos’
28. 1968: Overpopulation Will Spread Worldwide
29. 1970: World Will Use Up All its Natural Resources
30. 1966: Oil Gone in Ten Years
31. 1972: Oil Depleted in 20 Years
32. 1977: Department of Energy Says Oil will Peak in 1990s
33. 1980: Peak Oil In 2000
34. 1996: Peak Oil in 2020
35. 2002: Peak Oil in 2010
36. 2006: Super Hurricanes!
37. 2005 : Manhattan Underwater by 2015
38. 1970: Urban Citizens Will Require Gas Masks by 1985
39. 1970: Nitrogen buildup Will Make All Land Unusable
40. 1970: Decaying Pollution Will Kill all the Fish
41. 1970s: Killer Bees!
Update: I’ve added 9 additional failed predictions (via Real Climate Science) below to make it an even 50 for the number of failed eco-pocalyptic doomsday predictions over the last 50 years.
42. 1975: The Cooling World and a Drastic Decline in Food Production
43. 1969: Worldwide Plague, Overwhelming Pollution, Ecological Catastrophe, Virtual Collapse of UK by End of 20th Century
44. 1972: Pending Depletion and Shortages of Gold, Tin, Oil, Natural Gas, Copper, Aluminum
45. 1970: Oceans Dead in a Decade, US Water Rationing by 1974, Food Rationing by 1980
46. 1988: World’s Leading Climate Expert Predicts Lower Manhattan Underwater by 2018
47. 2005: Fifty Million Climate Refugees by the Year 2020
48. 2000: Snowfalls Are Now a Thing of the Past
49.1989: UN Warns That Entire Nations Wiped Off the Face of the Earth by 2000 From Global Warming
50. 2011: Washington Post Predicted Cherry Blossoms Blooming in Winter
14. 1988: Temperatures in DC Will Hit Record Highs
Normal distribution has entered the chat
21. 2008: Arctic will Be Ice Free by 2018
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arctic_sea_ice_decline
What is your point?
The long term predictions can be correct with some error bars on the time it takes. If those bars are just a few lifetimes, sure maybe you wont see it, but that is still instant on a planetary timescale.
The long term predictions can be correct with some error bars on the time it takes. If those bars are just a few lifetimes, sure maybe you wont see it, but that is still instant on a planetary timescale.
Some of them were just plain wrong like Elrich's prediction being unable to feed a several billion leading to mass starvation in the 70s, or the the population bomb predictions.
Basically there is ZERO accountability to making batshit insane predictions. So one is much better off as an alarmist than as a skeptic -- alarmism draws attention/funding.
But we did get an interesting movie out of the fake population bomb hysteria: Soylent Green.
But we did get an interesting movie out of the fake population bomb hysteria: Soylent Green.
2. 1969: Everyone Will Disappear In a Cloud Of Blue Steam By 1989 (1969)
You can find the NY Times clip here:
https://cei.org/blog/wrong-again-50-years-of-failed-eco-poca...
https://cei.org/blog/wrong-again-50-years-of-failed-eco-poca...
Fascinating, so we're all fine? Business as usual, just what I wanted to hear.
I knew it deep down, it was all just college kids freaking out like in the 70's.
Silent spring and all that crap. Ha.
I knew it deep down, it was all just college kids freaking out like in the 70's.
Silent spring and all that crap. Ha.
1. 1982 Burning fossil fuels leads to climate desaster in 2030s
2. 1983 Burning fossil fuels leads to climate desaster in 2030s
3. 1984 Burning fossil fuels leads to climate desaster in 2030s
4. 1985 Burning fossil fuels leads to climate desaster in 2030s
5. 1986 Burning fossil fuels leads to climate desaster in 2030s
6. 1987 Burning fossil fuels leads to climate desaster in 2030s
7. 1988 Burning fossil fuels leads to climate desaster in 2030s
8. 1989 Burning fossil fuels leads to climate desaster in 2030s
9. 1990 Burning fossil fuels leads to climate desaster in 2030s
10. 1991 Burning fossil fuels leads to climate desaster in 2030s
11. 1992 Burning fossil fuels leads to climate desaster in 2030s
12. 1993 Burning fossil fuels leads to climate desaster in 2030s
13. 1994 Burning fossil fuels leads to climate desaster in 2030s
14. 1995 Burning fossil fuels leads to climate desaster in 2030s
15. 1996 Burning fossil fuels leads to climate desaster in 2030s
16. 1997 Burning fossil fuels leads to climate desaster in 2030s
17. 1998 Burning fossil fuels leads to climate desaster in 2030s
18. 1999 Burning fossil fuels leads to climate desaster in 2030s
19. 2000 Burning fossil fuels leads to climate desaster in 2030s
20. 2001 Burning fossil fuels leads to climate desaster in 2030s
21. 2002 Burning fossil fuels leads to climate desaster in 2030s
22. 2003 Burning fossil fuels leads to climate desaster in 2030s
23. 2004 Burning fossil fuels leads to climate desaster in 2030s
24. 2005 Burning fossil fuels leads to climate desaster in 2030s
25. 2006 Burning fossil fuels leads to climate desaster in 2030s
26. 2007 Burning fossil fuels leads to climate desaster in 2030s
27. 2008 Burning fossil fuels leads to climate desaster in 2030s
28. 2009 Burning fossil fuels leads to climate desaster in 2030s
29. 2010 Burning fossil fuels leads to climate desaster in 2030s
30. 2011 Burning fossil fuels leads to climate desaster in 2030s
31. 2012 Burning fossil fuels leads to climate desaster in 2030s
32. 2013 Burning fossil fuels leads to climate desaster in 2030s
33. 2014 Burning fossil fuels leads to climate desaster in 2030s
34. 2015 Burning fossil fuels leads to climate desaster in 2030s
35. 2016 Burning fossil fuels leads to climate desaster in 2030s
36. 2017 Burning fossil fuels leads to climate desaster in 2030s
37. 2018 Burning fossil fuels leads to climate desaster in 2030s
38. 2019 Burning fossil fuels leads to climate desaster in 2030s
39. 2020 Burning fossil fuels leads to climate desaster in 2030s
40. 2021 Burning fossil fuels leads to climate desaster in 2030sOk?
So our only problem is climate disaster and it’s not gonna happen?
I’m genuinely trying to understand your point but you seems to copy paste lists a lot.
Can you expand on what they mean for you?
I’m genuinely trying to understand your point but you seems to copy paste lists a lot.
Can you expand on what they mean for you?
“Bjørn Lomborg is author of "False Alarm". Andrew Revkin is a climate journalist (21 years at NY Times).”
They refute many of the claims in this article about how much of a doomsday event faces us.
Are they full of shit? Is this article sensationalist?
My gut tells me Lex’s guests are downplaying too much and this article is sensationalizing the issue, but that may be my bias to look for the middle ground.