[rayiner]

It’s important to note that this does not reflect the consensus scientific view: https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2019/11/25...

> First, no credible scientific body has ever said climate change threatens the collapse of civilization much less the extinction of the human species.

> I asked the Australian climate scientist Tom Wigley what he thought of the claim that climate change threatens civilization. “It really does bother me because it’s wrong,” he said. “All these young people have been misinformed. And partly it’s Greta Thunberg’s fault. Not deliberately. But she’s wrong.”

> All of this helps explain why IPCC anticipates climate change will have a modest impact on economic growth. By 2100, IPCC projects the global economy will be 300 to 500% larger than it is today. Both IPCC and the Nobel-winning Yale economist, William Nordhaus, predict that warming of 2.5°C and 4°C would reduce gross domestic product (GDP) by 2% and 5% over that same period.

Additionally, what is a “planetary state of emergency?” Like global martial law? Because if the tipping point theory is correct, that’s what we have to be talking about, right. It can’t just be a metaphor for “try harder to meet climate change protocols.”

[Lutger]

The article you link to does not back up your claim about scientific consensus at all. In fact, it's rather biased and bad from that point of view.

[rayiner]

What bias?

> Michael Shellenberger is a Time Magazine “Hero of the Environment” and Green Book Award Winner. He is also a frequent contributor to The New York Times, Washington Post

Additionally, the author cites and links to specific facts in IPCC and UN reports regarding population displacement, sea levels, crop yields, and economic impact.

[NeedMoreTea]

I would rather listen to the IPCC direct from their reports, or via less biased reporting than to Michael Shellenberger. He is consistently pro nuclear, a registered lobbyist, and particularly anti renewables - often simply making stuff up to find problems in their use.

Thus he often leaves me with feeling that I have to check every citation back to source to see the part he didn't quote, or the preceding and following sentence. He has such a clear agenda I find him hard to trust on any topic.

[rayiner]

He’s linking to the IPCC and UN reports he’s citing so you can just look it up.

Being anti-nuclear is a pretty good indication that you don’t think climate change is really a serious problem. France has a CO2 footprint much lower than its neighbors because it’s grid is heavily nuclear. (Right now, we don’t have the battery technology for a fully renewable grid, so countries like Germany must backup renewables with coal and gas. Also, it makes no sense to shut down nuclear plants that have already been paid for to build renewables. If climate change was really pressing, you’d keep the nuclear plant running, build the renewable resource, and shut down a coal plant instead.)

[NeedMoreTea]

Being obstinately anti-nuclear can be, though it pays to recognise the absurd costs that tend to come with nuclear electricity when you consider full lifecycle including decommissioning and waste handling. Right now we can bring renewables online cheaper and faster, though we are probably best served with a mix of both if nuclear costs can be constrained. Germany's move from already existing nuclear whilst using lignite is madness.

Being a pro-nuclear zealot who feels solar, wind, and hydro essentially has no place is as damaging and unhelpful, with as much of an agenda as anyone pro-fossil or believing climate heating isn't a problem. The man has a one issue agenda, read all his writings accordingly. shrug :)

[ptah]

that is still a blog post containing his personal opinion

[rayiner]

It’s an article (he interviews someone) collecting facts from sources that represent the scientific consensus.

[ptah]

not as authoritative as the nature journal article that OP is based on: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-03595-0

it is clearly based on a consensus

[rayiner]

The conclusion of the Nature article is not based on scientific consensus.

> This "cascade" of changes sparked by global warming could threaten the existence of human civilisations.

That's not supported by the underlying IPCC report (a 2018 publication that's one of the latest statements of consensus science): https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/sites/2/2019/06/SR15...

While the IPCC talks about "tipping points," it does not mean "cascades" that "threaten the existence of human civilization." It's important to understand that what the IPCC means by "tipping points" is certain irreversible changes in things like sea ice coverage, or collapse of maize crops in "certain areas." Those things might be bad, but they don't imply "runaway climate change" or collapse of global agricultural systems, or anything like that. See Table 3.7.

The aggregate effect of these local effects is estimated in box 3.6. For the United States, it says:

> The results for the baseline no-policy case indicate that economic damages along median temperature change and median damages (median-median) reach 4.5% of GDP by 2100, with an uncertainty range of 2.5% and 8.5% resulting from different combinations of temperature change and damages. Avoided damages from achieving a 1.5°C temperature limit along the median-median case are nearly 4% (range 2–7%) by 2100.

That's the bottom-line figure quoted in the article I linked. Avoided damages from keeping climate change to 1.5C are 2-7% of GDP by 2100. That means significant disruptions to the structure of our economy in response to climate change will almost certainly cost us more than what we avoid in damage from climate change.

The last section of the Nature article says that in the authors' view, the aggregate effect of these tipping points could be worse than the IPCC projects. (Note that the above GDP figures do attempt to account for tipping point effects.) That may or may not be true, but that conclusion is not part of the IPCC consensus.

[mempko]

Im sorry but, when have economists been right about anything? Economics is not a science, they just use math and big words because real scientists seem to.

[rayiner]

Economists can be pretty damn good at estimating the effect of things on the economy: https://www.cbpp.org/blog/cbo-correctly-predicted-historic-c...

> Meanwhile CBO’s 2010 premium projections were remarkably accurate: within 1 percent of actual average 2017 marketplace premiums.

Note that economists aren't running climate models. IPCC climate scientists are running models projecting what will happen (e.g. crop yields will decline by 20%.) IPCC economists are then putting a dollar value on those effects. (If crop yields decline by 20%, what will be the hit on the economy?)

[threatofrain]

Economics is a difficult phenomena but any nation or academic body which ignores it study would be severely foolish. There’s no point in bashing its scienciness.

[dredmorbius]

Economics, as a discipline and organised body of knowledge, is going through a rather severe crisis of confidence. And does, periodically.

https://www.ineteconomics.org/events/the-economic-crisis-and...