I think I saw this on Planet 3.0, but wherever, the video below, documenting the late Stephen Sneider's remarkable efforts to communicate the urgency and nuance of our climate crises to the public, is very well done. Please watch.
I found this video to be a well-balanced view. We need more of this complex-systems-theory brought into the public debate and given it's fair share of press.
The earth has dealt with "climate change" multiple times in the past, and the fit survived. If the models predicting catastrophe had been able to predict the apparent non-rise in the overall earth's temperature over the last decade, I'd be more concerned; from all accounts, they didn't, so I'm not concerned about models that are apparently not grounded in reality. In short, it seems the entire "the world is ending and it's our fault" is an overreaction (and perhaps a political play on the "environmentalist/people are bad" agenda) based on political versus scientific agendas.
I agree the world is a very complex system, so I'm not anxious, based on apparently poorly founded "science", to give up my life style, just in case of highly unlikely worst case scenarios highly unlikely to occur.
I have faith that this planet, as created, can continue to support our species, any many others, for the foreseeable future.
Mark is so wrong:
If the models predicting catastrophe had been able to predict the apparent non-rise in the overall earth's temperature over the last decade, I'd be more concerned; from all accounts, they didn't, so I'm not concerned about models that are apparently not grounded in reality
Mark, that is so wrong. I suggest you go to the scientific literature and do some reading of real science, not the junk you seem to believe from denier sites.
Hint, check out the 2009 paper by Swanson and Tsonis, I wont give you the actual reference but will leave that as a little lesson on how to search the scientific literature.
Mark, instead of just clinging to and repeating outright false information (the "non-rise in temperature"), manufactured talking points, and politcal dogma that reconfirm your preexisting beliefs you might want to investigate what the body of scientific evidence actually supports.
Here's a hint at what you would discover if your did so:
It's not "models" that predict potential catastrophe, it's basic physics, chemistry, biology and empirical evidence from past climate change events that do so.
Your understanding of the mechanism of evolution by natural selection could also benefit from actually looking at the science. It was not the "fit" that survived past climate change-driven extinction events, as multiple healthy and quite "fit" species did not surviveââ95% of them during the warming at the end of the Permian. It was those species genetically best able to adapt to the changing climate conditions that survived.
Our human species was able to evolve, adapt and survive the dramatic climate changes of the repeated glaciations and interglacials of the past 2 million years as small bands of hunter/gatherers, but large scale human civilization has never been tested by changes anywhere near as great. Every single aspect of what we know as civilization, including agriculture, has developed during the current relatively benign interglacial, and we in fact know of multiple past civilizations that were unable to cope with even the relatively small climate changes that occurred during this interglacial. Moreover, our species, never mind human civilization, has never experienced the climate system of a planet with 390 ppmv CO2--or higher since, we haven't even slowed the rate at which we are pumping CO2 into the atmosphere.
Frankly, you have nothing more than blind faith to support your belief that the worst case scenarios are highly unlikely and that your life style can be supported indefinitely. Those who are warning of the consequences of doing nothing, on the other hand, have both science and history to support their arguments.