“Global warming may or may not make life shitty in some future scenario.”

I think you’re trying to rationalize the position of the protesters, but this is a dangerous rationalization.

Arguing that it “may or may not” lead to catastrophic consequences leaves the door open for doubt.

I understand if poor people or nations are frustrated, and I agree that the rich have a responsibility to show leadership, but there should be no doubt that climate change will most negatively affect the poor.

There is always reason to doubt predictions about the future. Maybe we are coming up with the ultimate renewable energy source in terms of both externalities and economics, maybe we are rich enough to take preventive measures against the negative effects, maybe we geo-engineer or way out it, maybe the current climate models are completely bogus. I don’t know.

You don’t know.

agreed. 100 companies are responsible for 70% of global emissions, and you're punishing the people? come on, that's not right.

Do you think that those companies would exist in their current form without the consumers (/the actual population) buying stuff made by those companies?

Average joe is not educated enough/has to worry about everyday living, to actually pay attention to those companies practices. Its on the goverment to regulate them in such a way that would allow our spicies to thrive in the future.

Unfortunetely fast gain motion sparked by capitalism is also in the vains of people responsible for legiatlation.

Humans have too many self-destruct mechanisms embedded in them to accomplish anything in the long run as a civilisation. We either have to change drastically or face extinction. Untill the people who CAN make a difference start to care - there is not a lot masses can do. Grouping in modern age to the size that can influence those people at power is very hard.

Essentially, we're the problem because we've asked the market to build us the problem?

Your dichotomy is false. In a world with global warming there would be no humans. It's an extinction level event and few of us seem to understand it.

> In a world with global warming there would be no humans.

That statement is preposterously absurd.

Global warming is a serious issue. Ludicrous statements such as the above just detract from reasonable debate.

There are a lot of events in which global warming will mean the end of human life on earth.

Acidic oceans. Too much methane in our atmosphere and other “great” things, that have all happened in earths past.

Even if it doesn’t get to the Roland Emmerich version, which I agree we likely won’t, climate change will still displace billions of people. Just imagine how a world that couldn’t handle a few million refugees will react to a billion.

Climate change is the biggest and most important threat that humans ever faced, and we’re rioting to stop the solutions. I’m truly not sure where you or others find your optimism in that. Is it the falling man syndrome? After the first two floors you felt fine, and you even turned your back to the approaching ground, because it didn’t make you feel good?

I agree that the Roland Emmerich version is absurd, but we frankly would benefit immensely by acting as though it wasn’t.

Try growing crops in a planet ten degrees hotter than current levels and then we can talk about ludicrous.

No humans? Few humans, but why no humans? Because everything would be under water?

Because there are vast quantities of methane under the permafrost and if they escape to the atmosphere the temperature will rise by a lot.

By how much? Any serious analyses online about this?

What would a runaway greenhouse effect realistically look like? Venus?

You can find a lot of information in threads that have been discussed here:

https://hn.algolia.com/?query=permafrost&sort=byPopularity&p...

Sorry, not browsing through hundreds of articles about all sorts of things being found in permafrost. Any direct links to your particular doomsday scenario?

Doesn't Methane burn? Maybe another energy source for the future...

Thanks - interesting read. But it is still just one of many doomsday scenarios. I've already survived several of them (for example the hole in the Ozone layer and global nuclear war), so I am vary of getting depressed over yet another gloomy projection.

Of course bad stuff can happen, no question.

From the article it sounds to me as if there is a lot of Methane to go around. Maybe we should use it up, and use the energy to power air conditioning and growing food in mines and wherever. That would already solve two of the scenarios in the article - unworkable climates and food shortages.

Diseases also seem treatable, and the article mentioning bubonic plague is rather reassuring. We have antibiotics now to treat that, and vaccines against many old scourges.

I thought CO2 is mainly an issue high up n the atmosphere. Presumably on the ground, it would also help plants grow, which would in turn use it up.

I'm just saying, things might turn out different than expected.

Maybe in general, it simply is impossible to prevent change in the world. A large fraction of the doomsday scenario addiction of mankind might simply be fear of change.