I agree with the other commenters about predicting. You were relying on published reports, not visions or Ouija boards, after all.
I was wondering if you could comment on this statement: "Due to the rapid rate of environmental change in our wake, the extinction of our species will undoubtedly lead to the loss of all life on Earth." Is it really "undoubtedly"? Just because conditions are bad enough for us to go extinct, does that necessarily mean bacteria or ants won't find a way to survive?
Hmmm, it doesn't really make sense to me that if the climate catastrophe ends up eliminating humans that necessarily means eliminating literally all organisms on earth. Can you share at least one link that explains why that would absolutely happen? Thanks!
Sorry to be a pest (it's only because this subject matters immensely to me), but I see no reference in the article to human extinction meaning total extinction of all life on earth. I don't see humans referenced at all (though I might have missed it). There's also the paragraph right before the Methods section that says this: “When referring to the robustness of planetary life, we are not necessarily referring to the complete sterilization of the Earth. As also noted by Sloan et al.https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-018-35068-1#ref-CR14, even in case of astronomical catastrophes such as the unavoidable death of the Sun, life could survive in peculiar habitats such as hydrothermal vents”...)
I've lost a few yacht races because, after looking at the forecast, I chose too small a head sail, on another occasion, racing In the Coastal Classic, NZ's premier local yacht race, I smashed some aft rigging because I had to much sail up and overloaded it, I was wrong in the first instance because I followed the 'Precautionary Principle', I was wrong in the second instance because I didn't.
The first error cost me a podium position, the second error cost a few grand. Had the mast come down the bill would have been $100k + potential danger to crew.
I was racing and skippering a 50 fifty-footer for a mate one time as he couldn't make the race and as I maneuvered the yacht out of the marina, one of the crew asked me, "What do you think it's blowing"? I replied 7 to 10 K.
He snapped back, no way, that's at least 25 knots steady, gusting 30/35.
I laughed back and said "$7 to $10K of damage to our mates' yacht and bank balance."
To be successful as a racing yachtsman, you have to push the yacht and crew to the brink and no further, it's an incredibly fine line.
To be successful as a delivery skipper you have to break nothing, there is no repair shop in the middle of the ocean. My mission statement, to owners who hired me to deliver their yachts was: "My aim will be to give your yacht back in better shape than it was at the beginning of the delivery". Generally, I was successful and it led to me getting more work.
The mistakes Guy and I have made were all based on assessments of peer reviewed literature, that didn't pan out, TF!
People accuse us of 'Cherry Picking' data, so, should we ignore worst case scenarios?
Look where that's got us!
Failing to prepare is preparing to fail.
The stakes are so high in this 'race to Armageddon', that the precautionary principle should be mandatory but that would be logical and common sense and both are these days, in terminally short supply.
To me, Guy, your predictions are a means of providing information. Doesn't matter to me if you are "wrong" as I don't keep a scorecard. I just appreciate that you put in front of me information that allows me to make my own decisions. Thanks for all you do.
I sometimes imagine (dream, nightmares) of our planet as hurtling towards a cosmic wall that we have created. But, within this “we” (homo sapiens per se?) there’s many underdogs who say (justifiably?), that they, at least, wouldn’t have intended this (children, certainly; women, not absorbed by the patriarchy; inhabitants of the global South who wouldn’t have embarked on such an aggressive form of Capitalism; etc.).
Where was the wrong turn taken, exactly? What if, right at the brink of our demise, we receive images from the S.E.T.I. Project, as data freshly scanned with A.I. assistance, indicates possibilities for lengthened survival, roads not taken, that “we,” alas, could have taken.
Regardless, doing ourselves “in” by way of nuclear doomsday , or aggressive growth / carbon emissions, seems a quite dismal-moronic pathetic path (I like to think we could still do better).
I agree with the other commenters about predicting. You were relying on published reports, not visions or Ouija boards, after all.
I was wondering if you could comment on this statement: "Due to the rapid rate of environmental change in our wake, the extinction of our species will undoubtedly lead to the loss of all life on Earth." Is it really "undoubtedly"? Just because conditions are bad enough for us to go extinct, does that necessarily mean bacteria or ants won't find a way to survive?
According to the peer-reviewed literature, Earth will be devoid of life when our species goes extinct.
Hmmm, it doesn't really make sense to me that if the climate catastrophe ends up eliminating humans that necessarily means eliminating literally all organisms on earth. Can you share at least one link that explains why that would absolutely happen? Thanks!
https://guymcpherson.com/abrupt-irreversible-climate-change/
https://guymcpherson.com/science-update-according-to-the-ipcc-climate-change-is-abrupt-and-irreversible/
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-018-35068-1
Sorry to be a pest (it's only because this subject matters immensely to me), but I see no reference in the article to human extinction meaning total extinction of all life on earth. I don't see humans referenced at all (though I might have missed it). There's also the paragraph right before the Methods section that says this: “When referring to the robustness of planetary life, we are not necessarily referring to the complete sterilization of the Earth. As also noted by Sloan et al.https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-018-35068-1#ref-CR14, even in case of astronomical catastrophes such as the unavoidable death of the Sun, life could survive in peculiar habitats such as hydrothermal vents”...)
I've lost a few yacht races because, after looking at the forecast, I chose too small a head sail, on another occasion, racing In the Coastal Classic, NZ's premier local yacht race, I smashed some aft rigging because I had to much sail up and overloaded it, I was wrong in the first instance because I followed the 'Precautionary Principle', I was wrong in the second instance because I didn't.
The first error cost me a podium position, the second error cost a few grand. Had the mast come down the bill would have been $100k + potential danger to crew.
I was racing and skippering a 50 fifty-footer for a mate one time as he couldn't make the race and as I maneuvered the yacht out of the marina, one of the crew asked me, "What do you think it's blowing"? I replied 7 to 10 K.
He snapped back, no way, that's at least 25 knots steady, gusting 30/35.
I laughed back and said "$7 to $10K of damage to our mates' yacht and bank balance."
To be successful as a racing yachtsman, you have to push the yacht and crew to the brink and no further, it's an incredibly fine line.
To be successful as a delivery skipper you have to break nothing, there is no repair shop in the middle of the ocean. My mission statement, to owners who hired me to deliver their yachts was: "My aim will be to give your yacht back in better shape than it was at the beginning of the delivery". Generally, I was successful and it led to me getting more work.
The mistakes Guy and I have made were all based on assessments of peer reviewed literature, that didn't pan out, TF!
People accuse us of 'Cherry Picking' data, so, should we ignore worst case scenarios?
Look where that's got us!
Failing to prepare is preparing to fail.
The stakes are so high in this 'race to Armageddon', that the precautionary principle should be mandatory but that would be logical and common sense and both are these days, in terminally short supply.
“… the precautionary principle should be mandatory ...” Isn't that the truth! As we both know, the rabid pursuit of money carries the day, EVERY day!
Thanks for your informed comment, rooted in your many travels. Thanks, too, for paying attention.
To me, Guy, your predictions are a means of providing information. Doesn't matter to me if you are "wrong" as I don't keep a scorecard. I just appreciate that you put in front of me information that allows me to make my own decisions. Thanks for all you do.
Thanks for your kind response. You are one of the few NOT keeping a scorecard. I ought to connect you with those others. 😉
I sometimes imagine (dream, nightmares) of our planet as hurtling towards a cosmic wall that we have created. But, within this “we” (homo sapiens per se?) there’s many underdogs who say (justifiably?), that they, at least, wouldn’t have intended this (children, certainly; women, not absorbed by the patriarchy; inhabitants of the global South who wouldn’t have embarked on such an aggressive form of Capitalism; etc.).
Where was the wrong turn taken, exactly? What if, right at the brink of our demise, we receive images from the S.E.T.I. Project, as data freshly scanned with A.I. assistance, indicates possibilities for lengthened survival, roads not taken, that “we,” alas, could have taken.
Regardless, doing ourselves “in” by way of nuclear doomsday , or aggressive growth / carbon emissions, seems a quite dismal-moronic pathetic path (I like to think we could still do better).
“Where was the wrong turn taken, exactly?”
There's the question of the day. If only we had the answer, and the ability to go back in time ...