We don't have a 100 years anymore.

I think one of the best things the alarmists do is say we only have ten years left. When those predictions are proven wrong again and again eventually people will notice the pattern.

It's 12 years apparently

https://conservativehardliner.com/sites/default/files/styles...

People have been predicting the end of the world based on inference from their faith in a priori positions for a long time...

People don't pay attention long enough. We have 20 solid years of non-stop doomsday predictions, all of which were wrong. Nobody pays any attention to this, they just go right on believing all the new baseless doomsday predictions. Meanwhile actual looming disasters are ignored.

The return on energy investment for oil dropped from 20:1 to 12:1 in 15 years.

What you're arguing for is normalization of deviance.

> ten years

Your words not mine.

Problem is you guys thinks real technology moves as fast as you guys reinvent web frameworks.

It doesn't. Developing real technology and rolling it out takes decades.

It cuts both ways. Problem is you guys think that technology is not going to move at all. It will.

None of us individually do, but I'm pretty sure there will still be 7+ billion people on this planet in year 2120. Irrespective of 2 degree rise in temperature or lack thereof.

I'm not an expert, but I think the sea level rise is going to be quite crappy in another 30 years or so. Sounds plausible that it could lead to people being displaced and pricey waterfront properties and adjacent losing a lot of value.

A hundred years might enough to bring the population back up after civilization collapses. Collapse will put a damper on CO2 release, and the pulse of reforestation of formerly occupied areas would absorb a lot of the CO2 overburden.

Anyway that's the optimistic view.