I go with limits of growth, as it has been shown to fit the last 30 years. http://sustainable.unimelb.edu.au/sites/default/files/docs/MSSI-ResearchPaper-4_Turn

I go with limits of growth, as it has been shown to fit the last 30 years. http://sustainable.unimelb.edu.au/sites/default/files/docs/MSSI-ResearchPaper-4_Turner_2014.pdf http://sustainable.unimelb.edu.au/sites/default/files/docs/M... I also think Guy McPhearson is right in many aspects: https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=guy+mcpherson https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=guy+mcpherson The IPCC thinks its mostly linear, does not look linear (follow the links): http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/35975-arctic-sea-ice-could-disappear-this-summer http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/35975-arctic-sea-ice-coul... https://robertscribbler.com/2016/05/02/arctic-sea-ice-is-falling-off-a-cliff-and-it-may-not-survive-the-summer/ https://robertscribbler.com/2016/05/02/arctic-sea-ice-is-fal... (I can't find a 'wonderful' video I saw lately showing the monthly losses over the years...) Then methanhydrate, IPCC, hello ??? The ignorance is partially unbelievable. So, to answer your question: Can we safe the planet - Not with the attitude most of us and even most in science have. Robert Boyle would turn in his grave if he would hear the arguments some people make. From my "crackpot" perspective, we can safe the planet, I even know how - but as I don't have the finential liquidity for the experiments and the team to do so and looking at the world as a large: the answer is no. To be honest, I think the human being is intrinsically a good being (experience as a long vipassana meditator), but our society is so fked up, I quite often think it would be better for the galaxy. At least we are not capable of doing real damage to a galaxy and are incapable of infecting other lifespawners (planets that create high level lifeforms). Stupidity is not inherent in conscious beings - it's just WE will most likely not make it due a mixture of bad circumstances.