4 ms·

It seems to me the author is arguing against a point nobody is making, and conflating numbers that are not the concern. I've never heard the arguments that the

It seems to me the author is arguing against a point nobody is making, and conflating numbers that are not the concern. I've never heard the arguments that the author is trying to refute, and I consider myself at least mildly educated in the area. I understand the author is using 'currently threatened species' which are well-counted and well-understood, at least to the best of our ability. But that is not the concern. The concern is that runaway climate change, precipitated by corrupt governments and corporations worldwide via cheating emissions, lying to the public about CO2 effects, etc. The concern is the radical future uncertainty about how quick changes in future climate may alter ecosystems in a cataclysmic way from which they may not be able to adapt in time. That this has happened on a small scale already is a telling sign that things could escalate quickly if the world does not get a handle on climate change. The author points to optimistic evidence on local scales but ignores the larger unknowns of backwards progress on climate change, such as trying to bring coal back to US production at scale, etc. Edit: The author has this to say on the topic, which is unsourced and I believe so wildly optimistic without reason that it discredits most of the work: > My own prediction is that climate change will be deemed intolerable for humans long before it speeds up extinction rates, and even if radical steps have to be taken to head it off, they will be taken. The steps have not been taken, nor is there visible evidence they will be taken soon. In fact much evidence supports that steps are being taken to speed up climate change.

dredmorbius 7y ago
This is, very unfortunately, been increasingly typical of Brand over recent years.
lopmotr 7y ago
I agree that it's uncertainty of what the climate will do that's why it's serious. But alarmists don't say that. They're somehow certain there will be a disaster. There might not, and we're not sure, but they're don't dare express that uncertainty because either they're fooled themselves or they're afraid the common people who believe and vote for whatever the media tells them might use it as an excuse to not worry. That's perhaps reasonable for their goal because people generally can't handle uncertainty and convert it to a simple yes or no instead. But it's also wrong. As for people taking radical steps, of course we will - when it affects us. We'll move our cities and farms, build sea walls for the most valuable locations, etc. That's not a big challenge because almost every building on earth was built within the last century and most of them won't last another century regardless of the climate. So even if we somehow have to rebuild all of them, that's what we would have already done anyway. Infrastructure of cities is mobile on a time scale of 100 years. The CBD of my hometown was under water in the 1800s but now it's the capital city, all dry and well functioning because of massive civil works. As for nobody making those extinction arguments. Myley Cyrus said she wouldn't have children "until I feel like my kid would live on an earth with fish in the water".
- AstralStorm 7y ago
  There will be a disaster, we just don't know what kind. Will it be mass starvation, desertification, warfare, migrations, lack of water? Monsoons and tornados, or other inclement weather? People dying from heat? We don't know. There will be a disaster. Moving farms? Laughable and does not scale. Do you want to invite a few million Spanish into your backyard? I bet you won't and you would shoot the immigrants instead as is the trend. People will try to move and there will be a lot of misery involved. If you ever worked with refugees, you'd know.

dredmorbius 7y ago

This is, very unfortunately, been increasingly typical of Brand over recent years.

lopmotr 7y ago

I agree that it's uncertainty of what the climate will do that's why it's serious. But alarmists don't say that. They're somehow certain there will be a disaster. There might not, and we're not sure, but they're don't dare express that uncertainty because either they're fooled themselves or they're afraid the common people who believe and vote for whatever the media tells them might use it as an excuse to not worry. That's perhaps reasonable for their goal because people generally can't handle uncertainty and convert it to a simple yes or no instead. But it's also wrong. As for people taking radical steps, of course we will - when it affects us. We'll move our cities and farms, build sea walls for the most valuable locations, etc. That's not a big challenge because almost every building on earth was built within the last century and most of them won't last another century regardless of the climate. So even if we somehow have to rebuild all of them, that's what we would have already done anyway. Infrastructure of cities is mobile on a time scale of 100 years. The CBD of my hometown was under water in the 1800s but now it's the capital city, all dry and well functioning because of massive civil works. As for nobody making those extinction arguments. Myley Cyrus said she wouldn't have children "until I feel like my kid would live on an earth with fish in the water".

AstralStorm 7y ago
There will be a disaster, we just don't know what kind. Will it be mass starvation, desertification, warfare, migrations, lack of water? Monsoons and tornados, or other inclement weather? People dying from heat? We don't know. There will be a disaster. Moving farms? Laughable and does not scale. Do you want to invite a few million Spanish into your backyard? I bet you won't and you would shoot the immigrants instead as is the trend. People will try to move and there will be a lot of misery involved. If you ever worked with refugees, you'd know.