
Facing Extinction by Catherine Ingram - whsangell
http://www.catherineingram.com/facingextinction/
======
radford-neal
I think the author of this piece is mentally ill, since a healthy person would
not cherry pick the most distressing reports they could find, from among the
numerous bits of garbage that are always available, ignoring the other strong
evidence that the doomsday they fear is very unlikely. It's pretty sad.

The fallacies are so thick that I couldn't read all the way to the end. But
here's one excerpt selected arbitrarily:

"Grains, the basis of the world’s food supply, are reduced on average by 6%
for every one degree Celsius rise above pre-industrial norms. We are now about
one degree Celsius above and climbing fast; the oceans are warming twice as
fast and have absorbed a staggering 93% of the warming for us so far. If that
were not the case, the average land temperatures would be a toasty 36 degrees
Celsius (97 degrees Fahrenheit) above what they are now."

Notice the implication in the first sentence that pre-industrial temperatures
(or maybe lower?) were optimal for grain production. But pre-industrial" is a
completely arbitrary point in time as far as optimal temperature for growing
grains goes. Grains were first domesticated about 10,000 years ago, during the
"Holocene climatic optimum", when temperatures were significantly higher than
"pre-industrial" times.

The bit that follows about the temperature being 36 degrees Celsius higher if
it weren't for the oceans absorbing heat shows that the author lacks even
elementary understanding of climate science. Of course, if the oceans stopped
absorbing heat, so the atmosphere warmed more, the warming would stop when the
higher atmospheric temperature produced sufficiently higher radiation of heat
to space to counterbalance the greenhouse warming - which would happen long
before it increases by 36 degrees (radiation increases as the fourth power of
temperature (measured from absolute zero)).

If you too are convinced that "climate change" will be catastrophic, and are
making major life decisions, such as whether to have children, on that basis,
please think again. If you don't, you will regret it greatly later in life.

~~~
Daishiman
It's clearly you the one who prefers to live in ignorance.

Literally every person that O know who works in climatology, environmental
sciences or similar studies is shitting their pants over the current outlook
in environmental degradation.

If the consensus of the people whose job day in and day out it to study this
claim that we are seriously screwed over, it would be unwise not to pay
attention to them.

~~~
radford-neal
But that is NOT the consensus view of climate scientists. The IPCC reports,
for example, do NOT assign any non-negligible probability to the possibility
of human extinction caused by climate change. They talk about bad effects, but
nothing remotely close to that bad.

For a recent example of a real climate scientist debunking a way overblown
alarmist paper, of the sort that seems to prompt this sort of anguish, see the
following blog post:

[http://julesandjames.blogspot.com/2019/04/blueskiesresearcho...](http://julesandjames.blogspot.com/2019/04/blueskiesresearchorguk-
steffen-nonsense.html)

