14,000 scientists warn of “untold suffering” if we fail to act on climate change

We can’t get beyond 2-3 degrees, 4-6 degrees will have serious consequences.

This is the one benchmark that is not ambiguous, whereas talking about polar ice caps melting (at variable rates), or global emission going up/down/stay the same is sort of ‘eh, so what’s that mean? We up 1 degree or not?’.

Things that fall under hysteria is the claim that wildfires are because of climate change, or that it’s hotter than it’s ever been in so and so place, or that hurricane season is particularly bad this year because … the boogey man climate change.

Telling people that all the indulgences they love are destroying the planet but won't affect us until generations in the future is a poor strategy that only a tactless political manipulator would employ. Nobody wants to hear about climate change, it's tone deaf.

If anything, I am surprised that climate change is being treated as seriously as it is in the UK, from both sides of our political spectrum.

> If we are really on the brink of an existential crisis then why haven’t we been panic-building nuclear plants for decades? ... nuclear has been widely panned amongst the environmental cadres for decades.

Making nuclear power into a bogeyman was the fossil fuel industries' first and most wildly successful astroturfing campaign. Co-opting the nascent environmentalist movement in the 1950s was a stroke of genius.

The incentives for fossil fuel miners are, I hope, obvious here.

The incentives for politicians are about keeping their jobs. Say things to stay visible in the media; do what your donors want. Those people in the future? They won't vote for me next election.

So yes, you are right in that politicians are saying things for political gain. Scientists and engineers make really bad politicians though; they tend to say what they believe to be true.

For politicians you could add incredulity, inertia, and distraction as well if you wish.

Incredulity: they lack the skills to evaluate what scientists say, so they rely on heuristics: the climate is stable. Inertia: meetings and more meetings. Distraction: there are always more visible and understandable "crises" (really, bike-shedding) that serve equally well or better.

And narcissism too: no-one honours people who prevented crises; they remember the hero of the hour. (See: the widespread belief that Y2K was a big hoax, rather than there being a day of gratitude that the world's financial systems didn't seize up for 18 months.)

My expected scenario is this: panic after a few really large weather events in the 2030s (say, 10 million or more dead in a prolonged heatwave, or a bunch of them, and/or simultaneous crop failure--down 40% or more--in 3 of the 5 major grain-growing regions of the world, twice in five years, and/or really serious flooding in major urban areas).

I expect to see the beginnings of serious government action in the 2040s. If I'm still alive.

Heard it for decades.

Fourteen years ago during his acceptance speech for the Nobel Peace Prize, Al Gore said the polar ice "could" be gone in 5 years.

And such things have been said much longer before that.

Even when you get all of that, actually choosing an action on climate change isn't easy. It's a thorny, difficult problem. When you add in the difficulty of requiring absolute unanimity among that supermajority, it's no surprise that you can't get anything done, even if a majority of people recognize the problem and wish to act.

All we know is that we had a kind of stable ecosystem that's being disrupted by massive amount of CO2 and other gases being introduced in the system in a relatively short amount of time.

It's a slowish process but whatever the outcome is it doesn't look like we'll be able to reverse it

* Predictions that increased carbon in atmosphere would lead to higher average temperatures -> has happened. * Predictions that extreme weather events like "once in a hundred years" floods would become more common -> has happened. * Predictions that wildfire season would start earlier in the spring and end later in the fall -> has happened. * Predictions that we'd see reductions in glaciers and arctic ice -> has happened. * Predictions that we'd see a collapse in biodiversity and mass extinctions -> has happened.

Scientists can't tell you exactly where an electron is and how fast it's moving, but they can still predict how it interacts with things around it.