Meanwhile climate change deniers are sitting on their couches pulling things out of their asses, cherry picking data from publications they didn't write, removing all context to support their argument. Posting content on Youtube, Twitter, TikTok and Substack is all these people do, either for subscribers or for conservative think tanks financed by the fossil fuel industry.

Complicated systems tend to show only subtle signs before they rapidly collapse. AI is a new approach that might actually help us asses the risks better.

Climate change is a mine field. Telling people that we are going to be okay, while not doing anything to manage the risk is a lie. Rapid, extreme changes are coming, and they are going to test our civilization's ability to survive. Many parts of the planet will be inhabitable. And that's in a few decades, not even centuries.

Unfortunately this is out reality, like it or not. We don't get another one, so it's important what we are doing something about it. But we don't because of people like you living comfortable lies, not willing to look up.

I don't think it's going to be a few decades. I think as you said the models are too conservatives. We are already seeing things that they didn't predict.

I don't think that's a "scientific consensus" on the end of the civilised world coming, that's what I'm talking about, that's what the narrative is.

There are countless examples of Ancient Greek cities/towns that are now several feet under the sea-level, and still, here we are, ~2500 years later and still doing our thing. The Cyrenaica and Northern Africa more generally was/were the bread-basket of the Roman Empire, they're not anymore, and yet, here we are, ~2000 years later, we've found other bread-baskets.

The civilized world now comprises of 8 billion people on a planet of depleting resources, energy crisis, pollution, and worst of all a man-made climate change that's many magnitudes faster than any before.

Good luck finding another bread-basket on an inhabitable planet with oceans having widespread oxygen-starved dead zones, a malfunctioning biological carbon pump, collapsing food web, extreme temperatures, intense droughts, diseases and conflicts.

We are seeing these happening already, and it's only going to get worst, much worst, as we reach the tipping points.

Academically, I would assume that for the majority of people, science was something you were taught to trust growing up, being told that scientists have your best interests in mind while they spend time finding out everything about the world and coming up with reasons/theories for the way the world works and interacts with itself. The world wouldn't be anything without science, they say.

Religion is based on a set of beliefs, followings, teachings, determined and taught/shared by "qualified" individuals like priests/pastors - followers were raised from a young age to follow, internalize, and spread their faith. The world wouldn't exist without God, they said.

When you go to church (catholic in this example), you're asked/silently obligated to donate to the church when the collection plate is passed around. You're giving money, and debatably power (in form of money) to the church to keep spreading their beliefs.

I think it would be foolish to assume that there weren't rich kings/countries hundred of years ago giving money to the church to influence certain activities/actions through religious decree/law. I would also be a fool to not believe the church would influence the governments to act in certain ways based on how much power the church had had to control/influence it's followers.

Today, we have numerous examples of corporations lobbying governmental and scientific institutions to push whatever is the cause de jour. There was corn syrup lobbying in the 2010's and who knows how far back, you had the food pyramid in the 90's that heavily promoted food groups that the USDA itself was subsidizing.

There's so many outside influences, blind faith/trust, etc. etc. that I feel comfortable in todays day and age saying that society in general "trusts" science like they would "trust" a religion to keep them safe and alive, and healthy - and therefore this "trust" can be exploited to invoke fear, uncertainty, and ultimately convince people that the harm they're going through or the actions they're being forced to take, is for their own good - with the other followers chastising or guilting the others or "non-believers" into believing what _they_ think is the truth.

Do you kind of see what I'm getting at? It might seem completely odd-ball to you, but it's how a lot of people interpret and understand what's going on. Science isn't this 100% true, be-all, end-all thing because it will _always_ corrupted by governments, corporate interests, NGO influence, etc. etc. etc.

Can you not see? The changes became so rapid in the last few years that you can just go outside and see for yourself, extreme temperatures, heat domes, cold waves, wildfires, droughts, intense storms, vanishing biodiversity. Once in a hundred years events one after another. I remember my childhood when we used to have four seasons, we barely have two now, a mild winter with occasional cold waves and a summer with extreme weather. No in-between. Biggest droughts we have ever seen. A lot of insects missing.

It's an absolutely giant, complex system that has enough opportunities in the works for humans - or groups of humans running corporations/NGOs/research groups - to exploit for personal profit/power/etc. meaning the end-goals are never truly achieved.

You have no recourse to your government for the decisions it makes - sure, you can vote - but your vote has such little power compared to the effort required to make meaningful decisions in society at large. Violence is out of the question legally, though the government sure likes to be violent towards its people when they want something from you.

I believe it's simply not possible for the government to simultaneously keep and grow its power and take complete care of its citizens. Governments are corporations with customers that are forced to buy products (road access, schooling, healthcare, as some examples) from them at the rate the government chooses at the service level they choose. You have no other options. Good luck with trying to change it when there's so many people all fighting amongst each other over inane things compared to this all-encompassing problem of the climate, like 'critical race theory', 'universal basic income', or 'building a wall'.

If we've already gone past the turning point as you have suggested with credible evidence, then why bother pushing so hard? We've already ruined the earth. Why not make things as comfortable as we can for the ones that are still around?

Bit of a defeatist attitude to take, but it seems like that's where it's going to inevitably if the climate scientists are right.

I don't know - I'd rather live in relative comfort because I owe nothing to the people of the future, and I wouldn't expect people in the past to owe me anything either...