It's all over but for the sweating?

[Alteredstory]

Originally Posted by P-hack

So if we can't "stop" climate change (which we can't in the long run anyway) They will be able to farm in antartica, and the tropic zones will be over more land mass. The population will shrink for a spell and once arid land will be rainforest. Does that terrify you?

First of all, it will be hundreds of years before Antarctica is ice-free, if it EVER is, and by that time sea levels will be hundreds of feet higher. There is no guarantee that it will be farmable.

Second, there is no guarantee that humanity will survive. I think it's likely that we will, but I would like to increase the odds on that.

Third, we will be living at the beginning of the period during which "the population will shrink", and yes - I'm rather unhappy about that.

Fourth, while you're looking for the source of your "1400 degree" prediction, please find your source for arid land turning into rainforest as well. From what I've been able to find, there is no indication that such a trend will exist.

Look - I don't expect you to change your mind in this conversation. Human brains don't work that way. All I want is for you to actually look at the evidence, rather than the Daily Mail, pundits, and science fiction authors. Think about it, and return to the topic, rather than accusing people of terrorism, and making stuff up.

[P-hack]

Just being optimistic as opposed to pessimistic. I think my chances of surviving are better that way.

[Arragonis]

Originally Posted by Alteredstory

Check his sources. I've found them to be good. The background of a person matters less than what they do and how good their sources are.

Well that contrasts with the "they are scientists therefore they are right" argument which is refreshing.

I used to be a signed up member of SkS and I did follow their commentary. One morning I did follow their source links and then did a little googling and, I no longer trust everything they tap. I recommend it, seriously.

These are the guys who came up with the recent "moon landing" paper and the new improved "97 %" paper which has been pulled apart all over the place.

They don't do science, much.

That the Guardianhas decided they are a "media partner" is another reason I no longer read that paper, and as a lifelong middle class leftie I should be in their (the Guardian that is) demographic that is a loss to them.

No wonder they are going out of business...

[NeilBlanchard]

Because we are causing climate change, we can also then, by definition, stop what we are doing wrong, and then hold on for the ride.

[Arragonis]

Not according to the OP, its too late.

Or do we agree that is bollocks ?

[Alteredstory]

To which "moon landing paper" are you referring?

Look - they're not perfect, and some of their articles are poorly sourced. When that happens, I turn elsewhere. When their "rebuttal" concerning the ability of the planet's ecosystems to adapt to climate change fell short, I wrote my own. Most of what they have I've found to be useful, and their "interactive history of climate science" is a brilliant resource, if you have occasion to use it.

[P-hack]

Originally Posted by Alteredstory

...

What about my mind needs to change?!? Why do you think that the population should never shrink? At least "not on your watch", should it march ever upward because you will feel bad otherwise? How do you think the climate got screwed up in the first place?

[Arragonis]

Originally Posted by Alteredstory

To which "moon landing paper" are you referring?.

Google it.

EDIT - Start here and work backwards
http://climateaudit.org/2013/08/01/l...ys-backdating/

[NeilBlanchard]

I don't think the OP is saying it is "all over" - just that we are guaranteed to sweat more in the future.

Do we stake the future of all life on the planet on your opinion (that climate change is bollocks), or do we take the studied analysis of almost every scientist who is working on the problem?

[Alteredstory]

P-hack, you've made a number of assertions since I started this conversation that I think are inaccurate. I've made arguments for why I think so. You seem to have ignored them, and not really presented any support for your opinions. In time, I hope you'll change your mind, but really I'd just settle for more critical thought, and less hyperbolic rhetoric ("terrorism", for example).

And no, I don't want the population to grow out of control, I just recognize that when an overly large population is pushed to the point of crashing, as we are doing by creating a hostile environment and not preparing for the results, that is when that population is most vulnerable to extinction. I don't think it's a HUGE risk, but it's a risk, and I'd like to reduce it. Climate change has killed off species before.

The climate got screwed up for a number of reasons, but changing our power sources is an easier endeavor than undoing the centuries of religious dogma, societal pressure, and thoughtlessness that continue to drive the population boom. It's a related issue, but a separate one.