I've only ever heard the claim that climate change is civilization ending as a strawman from so-called climate skeptics. Also occasionally from those that are poorly informed, but they also tend to believe things like GMOs being the end of agriculture, and have basically zero impact on society due to lack of influence and small number of people. Nordhous' extreme situations may have been possible back in the 1990s with zero action and without the advent of solar, wind, and storage that have been created since then, but his statements are kind of wacky.

We've known for almost a decade now that the RCP8.5 scenarios are no longer on the table, and even that worst case scenario wasn't civilization ending.

I read Bill Gates' note as not an evolution on his view at all, it seems 100% consistent with everything he has worked for, but rather trying to place climate change in a more humanity-focused context for evaluating tradeoffs of where to put money. That's very important for governments and for wealthy philanthropists like him, and for the COP 3 audience he's talking to.

>I've only ever heard the claim that climate change is civilization ending as a strawman from so-called climate skeptics

Did you see what happened in Europe with a rather small mass migration 10/15 years ago due to Arab Spring ? People have short memories.

Can you imagine what will happen when 100 of thousands start migrating north when they can no longer feed themselves and maybe even work outside ? Italy was close to sinking boats coming across the the sea. Other countries in the EU started building walls. And even Germany took a slight right turn. Once these large migrations start, I expect bombs will be dropped. Same applies to North America.

"I've only ever heard the claim that climate change is civilization ending as a strawman from so-called climate skeptics. "

And yet, sentence from current top comment: " We're in a mass extinction."

We are in a mass extinction. It is not civilization ending.

Can you explain why you think these contradict each other?

Mass extinction is not necessarily civilization ending. Half of all living species could die, 80% of all humans could die, and civilization would find a way to move on. It would still be an absolutely major catastrophic event.

At the rate that temperature is increasing, assuming it is not stopped, it's not a matter of will there be an extinction event within the next few hundred years, but how bad will it be.

I hope you realize that there are more species on earth than just humans.

Of course, but why would it matter unless it affects human civilization? There have been extinctions for the history of the world...

that's what "climate skeptics" have been saying for twenty years but you would get bullied for saying so.

my favorite was getting told we "deserved it" for being in Texas during the ice apocalypse, because Texas is a red state.

I hope that people exhibiting that kind of behavior are finally starting to question whether or not it's helpful. The article suggests that is perhaps beginning to happen.

If you want people to make sacrifices to improve the future, just maybe messaging that it's hopeless and anyone who doesn't see that is stupid isn't the best strategy for effecting real change

> particularly for people in the poorest countries

> for being in Texas

News flash: climate change by and large isn't about the US, and US will be one of the least impacted nations of first hand climate change effects.

Not who you are replying to, but two of the most populated U.S states will massively depopulate with much more climate change. Texas and Florida are turning into complete furnaces for 1/3 of the year and subject to catastrophic severe weather another 1/3.

Which is a small deal compared to a billion foreign migrants, which is also a possibility, but still a massive deal. You are completely correct that the first world will escape most of the direct and dire pain resulting from our irresponsible burning of the future.

I also think trying to suss out “who is going to suffer more” is basically pointless when so much of our economy is based worldwide trade and so much of our society is expecting relatively stable populations, two things that will change rapidly with a few climate shifts.

*this entire thread is getting at one thing: yes, humanity and the general summary of human knowledge will almost certainly survive the extreme chaos we are heading for. That should not be much consolation to you, because the chaos will set back the human experience 150 years for generations that include you and your children.

Especially when the chaos involves incredible strife for many nations with nuclear armament.

You’re right, and you’re being downvoted for being so.

The bullying and name calling were intolerable. Even suggesting that the earths demise was not immediate would label you a denier and ignorant about the undeniable science behind the alarms.

It seems the tide is turning and some of the leading voices in the earth-is-cooking camp are now walking things back.

Don’t wait for an apology, though.

You folks should stop hanging around such awful, nasty people. Or, maybe you're not remembering very well what actually happened in these conversations, but it would be shame to break apart a self-pity party.