This post reminds me of Deep Adaption theory by Professor Jem Bendell.

https://jembendell.wordpress.com/2018/07/26/the-study-on-col...

>Prepare for a tough, violent future. Be scared to death.

This is exactly the type of fearmongering Science avoids.

Science helps us arrive closer and closer to the truth, through hypothesis, experimentation, review, and revision. So yes, by definition science isn't in the business of fear mongering. But that really has no bearing on whether or not people choose to be terrified by the facts uncovered by science.

The IPCC has indeed carefully avoided claims which may appear to be "fearmongering". However, a consequence of this is that they typically discuss the least severe warming scenarios in predictions of the effects of climate change. But the fact is that at current emissions, temperature anomalies of 3 C or more are likely within the next century. Barring large-scale geoengineering on a scale never before attempted, such an amount of warming would be utterly devastating to human civilization. Relevant historical comparisons include the Black Plague and the Spanish flu and not much else. Nine-figure death tolls are not off the menu.

A nine-figure death toll seems optimistic, unfortunately.

I didn't pretend to present a scientific assessment of the situation. However I've been following closely the situation on energy (we are running out of it), other resources (phosphates, essential to industrial agriculture, metals, essential to any industry, particularly the hyped "green energies"), ecology, climate, for the past 15 years and the situation is dire.

You've been diagnosed with terminal cancer. Our models show, according to a majority of experts, that your quality of life will possibly be affected, with a consensus opinion that you may have a 10 to 20 year reduction in expected social interaction.

Sometimes telling it how it is equates to good bedside manner.

When the next local Gamma Ray Burst comes along, the planet will be sterilized.

Am I also fearmongering?

> Prepare for a tough, violent future. Be scared to death.

Anyone with even moderate financial stability will be completely alright. I'm not sure which scenario would be so terrifying as to be scared to death.

Nice financial stability you got there. It'd be a shame if someone came and took it.

In all seriousness, financial stability is wholly a product of political stability. The main risk to humans posed by climate change is political instability resulting from natural disasters, resource conflicts and large-scale displacement. You don't need to be a historian to recall multiple scenarios during the 20th century where financial stability would have had negligible impact on your ability to survive and thrive.

Unless you're sufficiently wealthy to hedge against geopolitical crises and can afford private security contractors and generous bribes, being financially stable just makes you a target. The very poor tend to cope better than the middle classes during periods of extreme instability, because they have the skills and the social network needed to survive. When banknotes become worthless, the shelves are bare or they're forced from their homes, they're not suddenly plunged into chaos - they're on familiar ground.

When was the last time you were absolutely flat broke? When was the last time you didn't know where your next meal was coming from? How many people in your life do you know for certain would risk their lives to protect you from armed thugs? For many people - including many Americans - these questions are not hypotheticals, but facts of life.

"The very poor tend to cope better than the middle classes during periods of extreme instability"

True, the gilets-jaunes are showing remarkable resilience in the face of instability caused by unsustainable taxes imposed by their managerial class and its armed thugs (riot police).

Do you really think so? Take a man's water away for a few days and you will have riots. You think you will be safe behind your wooden doors when you have people outside ready to kill for it? I am a little concerned to be honest even if I can afford the initial hit of it all.

Yes, this is the sociopathic point of view.

There are billions of people who don’t have “moderate financial stability”, sucks to be them I guess?

It's pragmatic. The most cost effective reaction to global warming is transplanting peoples. The maximal impact of global warming, from a cost perspective, will be a rounding error over the next 50 years.

Gaël Giraud, chief economist of the national French agency for development, says that the only economic simulation that reliably tracked actual data for nearly 50 years is World3. He often says that usually, building a model predicting 18 months in the future is a sure way to get the Nobel, but this one is in a class of its own.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World3

Here are some scientists' papers and opinions:

https://sustainable.unimelb.edu.au/publications/research-pap...

https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2011/09/discovering-limits-to-gro... https://cassandralegacy.blogspot.com/2011/09/cassandra-and-l...

Please, please disconnect yourself from anyone who tells you the US is on the verge of political collapse for any reason.

The EU is suffering from man behind the curtain syndrome, and that farce will be short lived. The outcome will be loud but normative.