New end of the world book treats climate change just like many other end of times worries that have not come to pass.
The end of the world is not going to happen within our lifetimes. That’s the word from Justin Deering, author of The End of the World Delusion: How Doomsayers Endanger Society.
“We’re bombarded with end-of-the-world scares practically everywhere you look,” Deering explains. “You hear about it in church, on the news, in the movies. These doomsday scenarios have actually bankrupted people and destroyed their lives. A few people have gotten rich at the expense of the more gullible.”
Last year was a big year for end of the world talks, as Family Radio’s well-publicized prediction of May 21, 2011 as the day of the Rapture and subsequent day of wrath on October 21 came and went without incident. This year will be even bigger as the Mayan calendar ends on December 21, 2012, which many think will lead to something big happening.
Many are spending their life savings getting ready for the end. Doomsday Preppers and Doomsday Bunkers are two shows that have come out this year, showing people spending their hard-earned cash on survival kits and underground bunkers. They’re ready to weather out the Apocalypse.
As for Deering? He’s not worried at all. “The world’s not going anywhere,” he says. “There are always people who fall for this stuff. This survivalist mentality we’re seeing is Y2K all over again.”
One supposes if you can convince people bad things are coming you can manipulate them into whatever behaviour you want from them. The saddest outcome of the climate change apocalypse was the family in South America who killed themselves to avoid the horrors to come. One would have thought that would cause some guilt on the part of the climate change believers, but it didn’t seem to. It’s all very cruel and a definite form of socially accepted bullying. So sad……
The possibility that global warming can have a major negative impact on people and other living things mean it is something to be taken seriously: it should be studied closely, mitigation plans considered, actions taken, etc. Unfortunately, it also feeds into humans’ natural inclination toward apocalyptic beliefs, as demonstrated by the beliefs of many, many religious sects throughout history. It is not “just another” end-of-the-world delusion, because we don’t know whether it is a delusion. The fact that it fits so well into peoples’ natural inclinations to believe the world will end prior the end of their own existence, means there is a high likelihood our emotional predisposition will highly bias our perception of the data and analyses of that data. Only good science and unflinching criticism of peer analyses will let us assess the threat objectively and respond appropriately. Dealing with a data set as variable and chaotic as the weather means we need lots of data collected over a long time period. Fears of reaching a tipping point and an irreversible decline drives premature conclusions, understandably. Patience, cool heads, and open minds with a robust, critical peer review process are the best guarantees of good decision making.
“The end of the world is not going to happen within our lifetimes.”
I agree.
That’s not to say that things are going to get pretty miserable a lot sooner.
I’m not even especially worried that the species of H. Sapiens is going to go extinct, although that does not have a zero probability.
What I am worried about is that the place in the world where I live is going to become relatively uninhabitable.
As to Important Point’s point, I am first of all impressed at his calm demeanor and rational discourse. Thank you.
I have to add one thing however.
That a tipping point exists is not seriously disputed, and we have the obligation to ourselves and our posterity to act effectively before that point is reached. The same logic requires that if the exact timing of that tipping point cannot be determined with high probability, then a conservative approach is indicated.
That is, better too soon than too late.
Actually, the entire concept of a climatic “tipping point” is not only widely and accurately disputed, but the entire concept of such is not a valid scientific principle in the slightest. It is highly unlikely, given the magnitude of natural forces driving climate, that anything humanity can do will at any point “tip” climate in any way. For example, we know from historical data that CO2 has fallen below 200ppm at various points in the past (Not good for life.) and has been as high as at least 2,400ppm. At no time did these naturally occurring CO2 levels create a “tipping point” from which the Earth did not naturally recover. CO2 is such a miniscule part of the climate system, and human contributions such a miniscule portion of that total, that there can be no rational discussion which begins from CO2 causing a “tipping point”.
Even if we allow that a tipping point does exist, how do we know that cutting CO2 won’t push us into an ice age? I read a theory that industrialization pulled us out of the last mini ice age. Where’s the evidence that if we cut CO2, we won’t drop back into the ice age? (Rich notes that lower CO2 did not cause ice ages in the past.)
I agree with Rich that there is really no evidence that tipping points actually exist. They are theories made up to explain why Venus is a vast wasteland and Earth is not, among other things. There are so many elements in climate that knowing what combination causes a tip is virtually impossible.