Societal effect of climate change (split from Officials at Glacier National Park)

[et pet]

1 hour ago, dimreepr said:

That doesn't mean we'll see glaciers again.

Might not be any human civilization to see glaciers again : 

 https://www.cbsnews.com/news/new-climate-change-report-human-civilization-at-risk-extinction-by-2050-new-australian-climate/

  "A new report by Australian climate experts warns that "climate change now represents a near- to mid-term existential threat" to human civilization. In this grim forecast — which was endorsed by the former chief of the Australian Defense Force — human civilization could end by 2050 due to the destabilizing societal and environmental factors caused by a rapidly warming planet. The report, entitled "Existential climate-related security risk: A scenario approach," lays out a future where society could collapse due to instability set off by migration patterns of billions of people affected by drought, rising sea levels, and environmental destruction.

"Climate-change impacts on food and water systems, declining crop yields and rising food prices driven by drought, wildfire and harvest failures have already become catalysts for social breakdown and conflict across the Middle East, the Maghreb and the Sahel, contributing to the European migration crisis," the report said. 

  The report was written by David Spratt, research director for Breakthrough National Centre for Climate Restoration in Melbourne, and Ian T. Dunlop, formerly an international oil, gas and coal industry executive and chair of the Australian Coal Association. Retired Admiral Chris Barrie, former defense forces chief of Australia, endorsed the report and wrote a forward to it. "

 

   https://docs.wixstatic.com/ugd/148cb0_a1406e0143ac4c469196d3003bc1e687.pdf 

"     FOREWORD  - Admiral Chris Barrie, AC RAN Retired

   Admiral Chris Barrie, AC RAN Retired In 2017-18, the Australian Senate inquired into the implications of climate change for Australia’s national security. The Inquiry found that climate change is “a current and existential national security risk”, one that “threatens the premature extinction of Earthoriginating intelligent life or the permanent and drastic destruction of its potential for desirable future development”. I told the Inquiry that, after nuclear war, humaninduced global warming is the greatest threat to human life on the planet. Today’s 7.5 billion human beings are already the most predatory species that ever existed, yet the global population has yet to peak and may reach 10 billion people, with dire implications absent a fundamental change in human behaviour. This policy paper looks at the existential climate-related security risk through a scenario set thirty years into the future. David Spratt and Ian Dunlop have laid bare the unvarnished truth about the desperate situation humans, and our planet, are in, painting a disturbing picture of the real possibility that human life on earth may be on the way to extinction, in the most horrible way. In Australia recently we have seen and heard signals about the growing realisation of the seriousness of our plight. For example, young women speak of their decisions to not have children, and climate scientists admitting to depression as they consider the “inevitable” nature of a doomsday future and turn towards thinking more about family and relocation to “safer” places, rather than working on more research.

  Stronger signals still are coming from increasing civil disobedience, for example over the opening up of the Galilee Basin coal deposits and deepwater oil exploration in the Great Australian Bight, with the suicidal increase in carbon emissions they imply. And the outrage of schoolchildren over their parent’s irresponsibility in refusing to act on climate change. As my colleague Professor Will Steffen has said of the climate challenge: “It’s not a technological or a scientific problem, it’s a question of humanities’ socio-political values… We need a social tipping point that flips our thinking before we reach a tipping point in the climate system.” A doomsday future is not inevitable! But without immediate drastic action our prospects are poor. We must act collectively. We need strong, determined leadership in government, in business and in our communities to ensure a sustainable future for humankind. In particular, our intelligence and security services have a vital role to play, and a fiduciary responsibility, in accepting this existential climate threat, and the need for a fundamentally different approach to its risk management, as central to their considerations and their advice to government. The implications far outweigh conventional geopolitical threats. I commend this policy paper to you. Admiral Chris Barrie, AC RAN Retired, is Honorary Professor, Strategic & Defence Studies Centre, Coral Bell School of Asia Pacific Affairs, Australian National University, Canberra. He is a member of the Global Military Advisory Council on Climate Change and was Chief of the Australian Defence Force from 1998 to 2002. "

The report :   https://docs.wixstatic.com/ugd/148cb0_a1406e0143ac4c469196d3003bc1e687.pdf   

Edited June 15, 2019 by et pet

[dimreepr]

13 minutes ago, et pet said:

Might not be any human civilization to see glaciers again : 

 https://www.cbsnews.com/news/new-climate-change-report-human-civilization-at-risk-extinction-by-2050-new-australian-climate/

  "A new report by Australian climate experts warns that "climate change now represents a near- to mid-term existential threat" to human civilization. In this grim forecast — which was endorsed by the former chief of the Australian Defense Force — human civilization could end by 2050 due to the destabilizing societal and environmental factors caused by a rapidly warming planet. The report, entitled "Existential climate-related security risk: A scenario approach," lays out a future where society could collapse due to instability set off by migration patterns of billions of people affected by drought, rising sea levels, and environmental destruction.

"Climate-change impacts on food and water systems, declining crop yields and rising food prices driven by drought, wildfire and harvest failures have already become catalysts for social breakdown and conflict across the Middle East, the Maghreb and the Sahel, contributing to the European migration crisis," the report said. 

  The report was written by David Spratt, research director for Breakthrough National Centre for Climate Restoration in Melbourne, and Ian T. Dunlop, formerly an international oil, gas and coal industry executive and chair of the Australian Coal Association. Retired Admiral Chris Barrie, former defense forces chief of Australia, endorsed the report and wrote a forward to it. "

 

   https://docs.wixstatic.com/ugd/148cb0_a1406e0143ac4c469196d3003bc1e687.pdf 

"     FOREWORD  - Admiral Chris Barrie, AC RAN Retired

   Admiral Chris Barrie, AC RAN Retired In 2017-18, the Australian Senate inquired into the implications of climate change for Australia’s national security. The Inquiry found that climate change is “a current and existential national security risk”, one that “threatens the premature extinction of Earthoriginating intelligent life or the permanent and drastic destruction of its potential for desirable future development”. I told the Inquiry that, after nuclear war, humaninduced global warming is the greatest threat to human life on the planet. Today’s 7.5 billion human beings are already the most predatory species that ever existed, yet the global population has yet to peak and may reach 10 billion people, with dire implications absent a fundamental change in human behaviour. This policy paper looks at the existential climate-related security risk through a scenario set thirty years into the future. David Spratt and Ian Dunlop have laid bare the unvarnished truth about the desperate situation humans, and our planet, are in, painting a disturbing picture of the real possibility that human life on earth may be on the way to extinction, in the most horrible way. In Australia recently we have seen and heard signals about the growing realisation of the seriousness of our plight. For example, young women speak of their decisions to not have children, and climate scientists admitting to depression as they consider the “inevitable” nature of a doomsday future and turn towards thinking more about family and relocation to “safer” places, rather than working on more research.

  Stronger signals still are coming from increasing civil disobedience, for example over the opening up of the Galilee Basin coal deposits and deepwater oil exploration in the Great Australian Bight, with the suicidal increase in carbon emissions they imply. And the outrage of schoolchildren over their parent’s irresponsibility in refusing to act on climate change. As my colleague Professor Will Steffen has said of the climate challenge: “It’s not a technological or a scientific problem, it’s a question of humanities’ socio-political values… We need a social tipping point that flips our thinking before we reach a tipping point in the climate system.” A doomsday future is not inevitable! But without immediate drastic action our prospects are poor. We must act collectively. We need strong, determined leadership in government, in business and in our communities to ensure a sustainable future for humankind. In particular, our intelligence and security services have a vital role to play, and a fiduciary responsibility, in accepting this existential climate threat, and the need for a fundamentally different approach to its risk management, as central to their considerations and their advice to government. The implications far outweigh conventional geopolitical threats. I commend this policy paper to you. Admiral Chris Barrie, AC RAN Retired, is Honorary Professor, Strategic & Defence Studies Centre, Coral Bell School of Asia Pacific Affairs, Australian National University, Canberra. He is a member of the Global Military Advisory Council on Climate Change and was Chief of the Australian Defence Force from 1998 to 2002. "

The report :   https://docs.wixstatic.com/ugd/148cb0_a1406e0143ac4c469196d3003bc1e687.pdf   

If I don't get to see it, it really doesn't matter.

1 hour ago, et pet said:

Might not be any human civilization to see glaciers again : 

 https://www.cbsnews.com/news/new-climate-change-report-human-civilization-at-risk-extinction-by-2050-new-australian-climate/

  "A new report by Australian climate experts warns that "climate change now represents a near- to mid-term existential threat" to human civilization. In this grim forecast — which was endorsed by the former chief of the Australian Defense Force — human civilization could end by 2050 due to the destabilizing societal and environmental factors caused by a rapidly warming planet. The report, entitled "Existential climate-related security risk: A scenario approach," lays out a future where society could collapse due to instability set off by migration patterns of billions of people affected by drought, rising sea levels, and environmental destruction.

"Climate-change impacts on food and water systems, declining crop yields and rising food prices driven by drought, wildfire and harvest failures have already become catalysts for social breakdown and conflict across the Middle East, the Maghreb and the Sahel, contributing to the European migration crisis," the report said. 

  The report was written by David Spratt, research director for Breakthrough National Centre for Climate Restoration in Melbourne, and Ian T. Dunlop, formerly an international oil, gas and coal industry executive and chair of the Australian Coal Association. Retired Admiral Chris Barrie, former defense forces chief of Australia, endorsed the report and wrote a forward to it. "

 

   https://docs.wixstatic.com/ugd/148cb0_a1406e0143ac4c469196d3003bc1e687.pdf 

"     FOREWORD  - Admiral Chris Barrie, AC RAN Retired

   Admiral Chris Barrie, AC RAN Retired In 2017-18, the Australian Senate inquired into the implications of climate change for Australia’s national security. The Inquiry found that climate change is “a current and existential national security risk”, one that “threatens the premature extinction of Earthoriginating intelligent life or the permanent and drastic destruction of its potential for desirable future development”. I told the Inquiry that, after nuclear war, humaninduced global warming is the greatest threat to human life on the planet. Today’s 7.5 billion human beings are already the most predatory species that ever existed, yet the global population has yet to peak and may reach 10 billion people, with dire implications absent a fundamental change in human behaviour. This policy paper looks at the existential climate-related security risk through a scenario set thirty years into the future. David Spratt and Ian Dunlop have laid bare the unvarnished truth about the desperate situation humans, and our planet, are in, painting a disturbing picture of the real possibility that human life on earth may be on the way to extinction, in the most horrible way. In Australia recently we have seen and heard signals about the growing realisation of the seriousness of our plight. For example, young women speak of their decisions to not have children, and climate scientists admitting to depression as they consider the “inevitable” nature of a doomsday future and turn towards thinking more about family and relocation to “safer” places, rather than working on more research.

  Stronger signals still are coming from increasing civil disobedience, for example over the opening up of the Galilee Basin coal deposits and deepwater oil exploration in the Great Australian Bight, with the suicidal increase in carbon emissions they imply. And the outrage of schoolchildren over their parent’s irresponsibility in refusing to act on climate change. As my colleague Professor Will Steffen has said of the climate challenge: “It’s not a technological or a scientific problem, it’s a question of humanities’ socio-political values… We need a social tipping point that flips our thinking before we reach a tipping point in the climate system.” A doomsday future is not inevitable! But without immediate drastic action our prospects are poor. We must act collectively. We need strong, determined leadership in government, in business and in our communities to ensure a sustainable future for humankind. In particular, our intelligence and security services have a vital role to play, and a fiduciary responsibility, in accepting this existential climate threat, and the need for a fundamentally different approach to its risk management, as central to their considerations and their advice to government. The implications far outweigh conventional geopolitical threats. I commend this policy paper to you. Admiral Chris Barrie, AC RAN Retired, is Honorary Professor, Strategic & Defence Studies Centre, Coral Bell School of Asia Pacific Affairs, Australian National University, Canberra. He is a member of the Global Military Advisory Council on Climate Change and was Chief of the Australian Defence Force from 1998 to 2002. "

The report :   https://docs.wixstatic.com/ugd/148cb0_a1406e0143ac4c469196d3003bc1e687.pdf   

We weigh more coal over the Hunter river weighbridge at newcastle nsw in one month than the UK burns in a year. Thats just one line, so lots more where that comes from.

[et pet]

2 hours ago, dimreepr said:

If I don't get to see it, it really doesn't matter.

We weigh more coal over the Hunter river weighbridge at newcastle nsw in one month than the UK burns in a year. Thats just one line, so lots more where that comes from.

c'est la vie!

Some thoughts to ponder :

“Man, do not pride yourself on your superiority to the animals, for they are without sin, while you, with all your greatness, you defile the earth wherever you appear and leave an ignoble trail behind you -- and that is true, alas, for almost every one of us!”
― Fyodor Dostoyevsky, The Brothers Karamazov 

“The ultimate test of man’s conscience may be his willingness to sacrifice something today for future generations whose words of thanks will not be heard.”
—Gaylord Nelson

“No doubt, humans will do a lot of damage before we ultimately destroy ourselves. But life will continue without humans. New forms of intelligence will emerge long after this human experiment is over.” 
― Zeena Schreck, Beatdom #11: The Nature Issue 

“Like music and art, love of nature is a common language that can transcend political or social boundaries.”
—Jimmy Carter

“Let's stop fighting over who we believe created the planet, & work together against those that choose to destroy it.” 
― Jack Barker

“The Earth will not continue to offer its harvest, except with faithful stewardship. We cannot say we love the land and then take steps to destroy it for use by future generations.”
—John Paul II

"We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors, we borrow it from our children."

Native American Proverb

“One of the first conditions of happiness is that the link between man and nature shall not be broken.”
—Leo Tolstoy

 

Earth provides enough to satisfy every man's need, but not every man's greed.

Mahatma Gandhi

“The Earth is what we all have in common.”
—Wendell Berry

The Earth has a skin and that skin has diseases, one of its diseases is called man.     

Friedrich Nietzsche

“Progress is impossible without change, and those who cannot change their minds cannot change anything.”
-George Bernard Shaw

[MigL]

You guys are all pessimists.

The study doesn't say ACC will destroy civilization.
It says societal pressures will destroy civilization as a result of conditions caused by ACC.
IOW we will kill ourselves off through war and greed for the few remaining resources ( land, food water, etc. )

I happen to believe in people.
For every bad person there are hundreds, if not thousands, of good people who will help each other.
Even if we have gotten the message a little late about ACC, I don't believe people will descend into a Mad Max type future where we are killing each other for the last bits of fuel. We are a highly adaptable species. We certainly can't continue as we are, with populations outstripping available resources, living close to sea level or away from currently inhospitable areas ( all the population of China could reside  in Northern Canada and we wouldn't even notice ), and dumping even more greenhouse gas into the atmosphere.
We may not be able to live as large in the future, But I don't see humans becoming extinct by any stretch.

And I still have hope for plentiful, affordable and compact  Fusion energy reactors.
( expect the best, but plan for the worst )

[beecee]

1 hour ago, MigL said:

You guys are all pessimists.

The study doesn't say ACC will destroy civilization.
It says societal pressures will destroy civilization as a result of conditions caused by ACC.
IOW we will kill ourselves off through war and greed for the few remaining resources ( land, food water, etc. )

I have often mentioned mainly in relation to space exploration, that we need to proceed as a united species and obviously would need to overcome our human frailties and follies in doing this. 

Quote

I happen to believe in people.
For every bad person there are hundreds, if not thousands, of good people who will help each other.

So do I, and I believe [or maybe it could be just hope] that the many more thousands of good people, can overcome the likes of Trump and his ilk. But my optimism is also tempered somewhat by the election of the likes of Trump, and in more very recent times, the election of "conservative" state and Federal governments in NSW and Australia.
 

[et pet]

2 hours ago, MigL said:

You guys are all pessimists.

The study doesn't say ACC will destroy civilization.
It says societal pressures will destroy civilization as a result of conditions caused by ACC.
IOW we will kill ourselves off through war and greed for the few remaining resources ( land, food water, etc. )

I happen to believe in people.
 

   Pessimist?  No. An Optimist sees a Donut, a Pessimist sees the Hole!

    Me I see a Calorie Laden Sweet Treat that I know I shouldn't be eating at all, so I will only Wolf Down 2 or 3...or

   Just a Realist.

   Just a Realist, MigL, posting an example of TMM espousing DOOM & GLOOM!

  Great, that you Actually Read the WHOLE POST!!

   Thought that CBS NEWS was being kind of Hysterical in how they chose to (misre)present the report " Existential climate-related security risk: A scenario approach "   https://docs.wixstatic.com/ugd/148cb0_a1406e0143ac4c469196d3003bc1e687.pdf

   They actually published  that " human civilization could end by 2050 due to the destabilizing societal and environmental factors caused by a rapidly warming planet. " !!  

        https://www.cbsnews.com/news/new-climate-change-report-human-civilization-at-risk-extinction-by-2050-new-australian-climate/

     Just ain't no telling the lengths that Governments, Military's and the Media will go, eh?

   Again, whether it is the MONEY SPENT to change the Literature and Exhibits at Glacier National Park or the MONEY SPENT on the Report or the MONEY SPENT by CBS NEWS to (misre)present the Report...I still cannot help but wonder how much better it would have been if that MONEY had been SPENT to actually COMBAT ACC!!!

   MigL, thanks for taking the time to read and fully comprehend what I actually Posted!  

Edited June 15, 2019 by et pet

[zapatos]

1 hour ago, et pet said:

   Again, whether it is the MONEY SPENT to change the Literature and Exhibits at Glacier National Park or the MONEY SPENT on the Report or the MONEY SPENT by CBS NEWS to (misre)present the Report...I still cannot help but wonder how much better it would have been if that MONEY had been SPENT to actually COMBAT ACC!!!

Let me help you out with that one so you can quit wondering. Using all the money to combat ACC that was actually spent changing literature and exhibits at GNP, spent on the report, and spent by CBS News on their presentation of the report, would have made just about zero difference.

1 hour ago, et pet said:

     Just ain't no telling the lengths that Governments, Military's and the Media will go, eh?

 

No telling how far they'll go to accomplish what exactly?

[beecee]

2 hours ago, zapatos said:

Let me help you out with that one so you can quit wondering. Using all the money to combat ACC that was actually spent changing literature and exhibits at GNP, spent on the report, and spent by CBS News on their presentation of the report, would have made just about zero difference.

Bingo! obviously, and just as obviously the uncredentialed author of that piece, designed "hysterically" to apparently add to the derision of climate change. And yet we are asked to consider this.....

Quote

et pet https://docs.wixstatic.com/ugd/148cb0_a1406e0143ac4c469196d3003bc1e687.pdf

   They actually published  that " human civilization could end by 2050 due to the destabilizing societal and environmental factors caused by a rapidly warming planet. " !!

 

  

Quote

No telling how far they'll go to accomplish what exactly?

Sheesh!!! Let's not encourage any conspiracy claims! 

Edited June 16, 2019 by beecee

[et pet]

To whom it may concern :

  A paper, https://docs.wixstatic.com/ugd/148cb0_a1406e0143ac4c469196d3003bc1e687.pdf ,is published that says(to paraphrase) that by 2050, the affects of ACC on society will produce conditions that could lead to the destruction of Civilization - as MigL mentioned,  possibly killing ourselves off through war and greed for the few remaining resources ( land, food water, etc. ).

 CBS NEWS runs a piece on that Paper : https://www.cbsnews.com/news/new-climate-change-report-human-civilization-at-risk-extinction-by-2050-new-australian-climate/ , where CBS NEWS states "A new report by Australian climate experts warns that "climate change now represents a near- to mid-term existential threat" to human civilization. In this grim forecast — which was endorsed by the former chief of the Australian Defense Force — human civilization could end by 2050 due to the destabilizing societal and environmental factors caused by a rapidly warming planet. " 

   Seemed to me that CBS NEWS was being kind of Hysterical in how they chose to (misre)present the report : quite a bit of difference between "by 2050, the affects of ACC on society will produce conditions that could lead to the destruction of Civilization"     and   "human civilization could end by 2050 due to the destabilizing societal and environmental factors caused by a rapidly warming planet. " 

  I then pondered, Just ain't no telling the lengths that Governments, Military's and the Media will go, eh?

   Because there is no telling the lengths that Governments, Military's and the Media will go to show such disregard for the intelligence and abilities Humankind.

     So, yeah, seemed kind of Hysterical to me how CBS NEWS changed could be on the road to the destruction of Civilization by 2050 to human civilization could end by 2050. 

[iNow]

4 hours ago, zapatos said:

No telling how far they'll go to accomplish what exactly?

I’ve got some experience here. You’re gonna need to ask about 5 more times before he maybe accidentally sorta kinda answers you by mistake. 

Edited June 16, 2019 by iNow

[beecee]

48 minutes ago, et pet said:

     So, yeah, seemed kind of Hysterical to me how CBS NEWS changed could be on the road to the destruction of Civilization by 2050 to human civilization could end by 2050. 

Yes I heard you et pet [if it is I you are referring to] and I replied that it is no more hysterical then 

3 hours ago, beecee said:

 as obviously the uncredentialed author of that piece, designed "hysterically" to apparently add to the derision of climate change. And yet we are asked to consider this.....  

Perhaps you are unable to see the forest for the trees?

Edited June 16, 2019 by beecee

[et pet]

Because there is no telling the lengths that Governments, Military's and the Media will go to show how little regard for the intelligence and abilities of Humankind.

   Analogy - CBS NEWS runs story with Link to paper that actually states that 2+2=4

          Then CBS NEWS says in that story that the paper states that 2+2=5. 

           Seems ain't no telling the lengths CBS NEWS will go to show that it has no regard for the Intelligence and Abilities of Human Civilization.

Edited June 16, 2019 by et pet

[beecee]

3 hours ago, iNow said:

I’ve got some experience here. You’re gonna need to ask about 5 more times before he maybe accidentally sorta kinda answers you by mistake. 

 I'm invoking the forest and the trees again.

[et pet]

“Progress is impossible without change, and those who cannot change their minds cannot change anything.”
-George Bernard Shaw

[MigL]

Seems kind of pointless to rail against 'the news'.
they are in the business of sensationalizing and 'selling' the news.
I think it may have been INow who previously posted a link to a graphic showing the various levels of objectivity and subjectivity of various news organizations.
There are not very many that are objective anymore.

The best option has always been inform ( and think for ) yourself to the best of your ability.

[beecee]

5 minutes ago, MigL said:

The best option has always been inform ( and think for ) yourself to the best of your ability.

Agreed, and both sides to some extent, sensationalized and indulged in hysterics including the author of the original article in the OP of the thread this was split from. All I say is that if we are to err, we need to err on the side of caution.

[beecee]

Here is another article illustrating the effects of climate change....

https://phys.org/news/2019-06-climate-held-arctic-ice.html

Climate talks held as Arctic ice melts, concerns grow:

Diplomats and climate experts gathered Monday in Germany for U.N.-hosted talks on climate change amid growing public pressure for governments to act faster against global warming.

here is a magnificent photo illustrating climate change effect.......

Over the weekend, a picture taken by Danish climate researchers showing sled dogs on the ice in northwest Greenland with their paws in melted ice water was widely shared on social media. Greenland's ice melting season normally runs from June to August but the Danish Meteorological Institute said this year's melting started on April 30, the second-earliest time on record going back to 1980.

more at link.....

On 6/17/2019 at 6:17 AM, MigL said:

Seems kind of pointless to rail against 'the news'.
they are in the business of sensationalizing and 'selling' the news.
I think it may have been INow who previously posted a link to a graphic showing the various levels of objectivity and subjectivity of various news organizations.
There are not very many that are objective anymore.

The best option has always been inform ( and think for ) yourself to the best of your ability.

from the same link is another photo that probably illustrates the hysterics and sensationalism played out on both sides.......

So yes, sensationalism and hysterics are continued to be played out on both sides, including the author of the piece in the OP from whence this was split from. And dispite some dilly dallying around, I'm rather pleased that we are all agreed on the science of climate change and its already seen affects on Earth, but also again I still say if we are to err, we must err on the side of caution. It's not us here that will be weathering the increasingly global effects of climate change, its our children and their children.

Edited June 17, 2019 by beecee

[Ken Fabian]

It is not erring on the side of exaggeration to take those IPCC reports - and the numerous studies and reports that are summarised and referenced within them - very seriously. And those are consistently telling us that it is very serious and the consequences highly likely to take the world into dangerous territory ie more towards the 'alarmist' end of media reporting and climate advocacy; the proper balance is not between those who are saying it is serious and dangerous and those who say it isn't but between serious and dangerous and more serious and more dangerous. What the media says and what advocates say may or may not mirror that.

12 years to "save the Earth" or 12 years to stay below CO2 levels beyond which avoiding more serious and irreversible climate consequences becomes unavoidable? I'm not sure 'save the Earth' in this context is even truly exaggeration - losing the Earth as we know it and large parts of the remnant ecosystems still surviving looks highly likely, whilst interpreting it as 'no more Earth' certainly is exaggeration. But it looks like that claim it is alarmist exaggeration is as likely or more likely to be made as a criticism of  those saying things like that than be the meaning intended. Certainly at the politcal advocacy level being succinct and impactful will continue to have priority over being precise - but those expert reports and studies are the bottom line here - not what advocates say or the slogans they use.

[beecee]

1 hour ago, Ken Fabian said:

It is not erring on the side of exaggeration to take those IPCC reports - and the numerous studies and reports that are summarised and referenced within them - very seriously. And those are consistently telling us that it is very serious and the consequences highly likely to take the world into dangerous territory ie more towards the 'alarmist' end of media reporting and climate advocacy; the proper balance is not between those who are saying it is serious and dangerous and those who say it isn't but between serious and dangerous and more serious and more dangerous. What the media says and what advocates say may or may not mirror that.

12 years to "save the Earth" or 12 years to stay below CO2 levels beyond which avoiding more serious and irreversible climate consequences becomes unavoidable? I'm not sure 'save the Earth' in this context is even truly exaggeration - losing the Earth as we know it and large parts of the remnant ecosystems still surviving looks highly likely, whilst interpreting it as 'no more Earth' certainly is exaggeration. But it looks like that claim it is alarmist exaggeration is as likely or more likely to be made as a criticism of  those saying things like that than be the meaning intended. Certainly at the politcal advocacy level being succinct and impactful will continue to have priority over being precise - but those expert reports and studies are the bottom line here - not what advocates say or the slogans they use.

You certainly won't get an argument from me.