5 ms·

Climate change is not expected to kill off humans. You're spreading misinformation.

freshpots 5y ago
It already has. What are you talking about? https://www.who.int/heli/risks/climate/climatechange/en/ https://www.who.int/heli/risks/climate/climatechange/en/
- exporectomy 5y ago
  "kill off" not "kill".
  - freshpots 5y ago
    Like "kill off" entire villages, right?
    - exporectomy 5y ago
      No. Like "kill off humans", as the OP said.
DangitBobby 5y ago
There are speculative theories on a future "hothouse earth" scenario which could, in fact, drive human extinction (as if human extinction is all that matters). But yes, speculation on global human extinction or mere catastrophic societal collapse is just that: speculative. Our models aren't predictive enough to tell us, for example whether the drier, hotter climate and unpredictable weather patterns will cause food instability, mass migration, and collapse in certain regions. We can be fairly confident of one thing; people like you and me who probably won't be materially affected will continue to drive the "wait and find out" strategy.
- exporectomy 5y ago
  The problem of climate extremists is that they have no idea what the risks to humans are, yet they want to cripple or destroy civilization just in case it's bad. There's a cost-benefit balance to be struck and people screeching about the end of the world are incapable of doing that. It's like banning the use of radio just in case hostile aliens pick up our signals and know we're here and come and attack Earth. Yea, it's a risk, yea it might kill off humans, or at least cause food instability, but it's a low risk so we decide to employ the "wait and find out" strategy. You might say aliens invading is a ridiculously low risk, unlike the catastrophes caused by climate change, but to compare them, you have to quantify the risk climate change. Nobody has, as far as I know. I've seen some predictions of costs, lives lost, sea level rise, temperature rise, but all of them are extremely tame and no worse that common disasters that we already experience and tolerate.
  - DangitBobby 5y ago
    Again, "killing off all humans" is not the only concern. We already know about the mass extinction event that's being caused by our current activities. (This is only partly caused by global warming, of course). Ignoring that is unconscionable. And we can see the effects of the climate change already happening to humans even in the US, with rare floods happening almost every year and record setting heat waves and droughts causing power problems and water insecurity. So clearly there will need to be some behavior modification or big actions to tackle the new normal. Anyway, it doesn't really seem like switching away from fuels that spew poison into the air and periodically facilitate catastrophic harm to ocean wildlife is going to, uh "cripple or destroy civilization." As for costs: > Global warming comes with a big price tag for every country around the world. The 80 percent reduction in U.S. emissions that will be needed to lead international action to stop climate change may not come cheaply, but the cost of failing to act will be much greater. New research shows that if present trends continue, the total cost of global warming will be as high as 3.6 percent of gross domestic product (GDP). Four global warming impacts alone—hurricane damage, real estate losses, energy costs, and water costs—will come with a price tag of 1.8 percent of U.S. GDP, or almost $1.9 trillion annually (in today’s dollars) by 2100. We know how to avert most of these damages through strong national and international action to reduce the emissions that cause global warming. But we must act now. The longer we wait, the more painful—and expensive—the consequences will be. 1. https://www.nrdc.org/sites/default/files/cost.pdf https://www.nrdc.org/sites/default/files/cost.pdf

It already has. What are you talking about? https://www.who.int/heli/risks/climate/climatechange/en/ https://www.who.int/heli/risks/climate/climatechange/en/

exporectomy 5y ago
"kill off" not "kill".
- freshpots 5y ago
  Like "kill off" entire villages, right?
  - exporectomy 5y ago
    No. Like "kill off humans", as the OP said.

DangitBobby 5y ago

There are speculative theories on a future "hothouse earth" scenario which could, in fact, drive human extinction (as if human extinction is all that matters). But yes, speculation on global human extinction or mere catastrophic societal collapse is just that: speculative. Our models aren't predictive enough to tell us, for example whether the drier, hotter climate and unpredictable weather patterns will cause food instability, mass migration, and collapse in certain regions. We can be fairly confident of one thing; people like you and me who probably won't be materially affected will continue to drive the "wait and find out" strategy.

exporectomy 5y ago
The problem of climate extremists is that they have no idea what the risks to humans are, yet they want to cripple or destroy civilization just in case it's bad. There's a cost-benefit balance to be struck and people screeching about the end of the world are incapable of doing that. It's like banning the use of radio just in case hostile aliens pick up our signals and know we're here and come and attack Earth. Yea, it's a risk, yea it might kill off humans, or at least cause food instability, but it's a low risk so we decide to employ the "wait and find out" strategy. You might say aliens invading is a ridiculously low risk, unlike the catastrophes caused by climate change, but to compare them, you have to quantify the risk climate change. Nobody has, as far as I know. I've seen some predictions of costs, lives lost, sea level rise, temperature rise, but all of them are extremely tame and no worse that common disasters that we already experience and tolerate.
- DangitBobby 5y ago
  Again, "killing off all humans" is not the only concern. We already know about the mass extinction event that's being caused by our current activities. (This is only partly caused by global warming, of course). Ignoring that is unconscionable. And we can see the effects of the climate change already happening to humans even in the US, with rare floods happening almost every year and record setting heat waves and droughts causing power problems and water insecurity. So clearly there will need to be some behavior modification or big actions to tackle the new normal. Anyway, it doesn't really seem like switching away from fuels that spew poison into the air and periodically facilitate catastrophic harm to ocean wildlife is going to, uh "cripple or destroy civilization." As for costs: > Global warming comes with a big price tag for every country around the world. The 80 percent reduction in U.S. emissions that will be needed to lead international action to stop climate change may not come cheaply, but the cost of failing to act will be much greater. New research shows that if present trends continue, the total cost of global warming will be as high as 3.6 percent of gross domestic product (GDP). Four global warming impacts alone—hurricane damage, real estate losses, energy costs, and water costs—will come with a price tag of 1.8 percent of U.S. GDP, or almost $1.9 trillion annually (in today’s dollars) by 2100. We know how to avert most of these damages through strong national and international action to reduce the emissions that cause global warming. But we must act now. The longer we wait, the more painful—and expensive—the consequences will be. 1. https://www.nrdc.org/sites/default/files/cost.pdf https://www.nrdc.org/sites/default/files/cost.pdf