Rodius, I apologize for the spelling. I blame it on spellcheck, which changed it to a recognized word. Sometimes, I catch it. My view is that in order to convince people that action is needed, we need to be honest. Emphasizing worst case scenarios is not the best approach. Nor is calling reputable scientists “deniers.” I would argue that you kind are doing more harm by making claims that are not supported. When people see that, they tend to dismiss everything else. That is why we are stuck in the doldrums, doing very little, namely what is easy.
The problem you have is you think this thread is about worse case scenarios.... it isn't.
It is about on point.
The worst case scenario is the extinction of our species within the next 50 years. For us anyway.
And this is not out of the realm of possibility either. There is a growing number of scientists in the fields that matter who are saying we could already have the last human to exist is alive today.
One of my friends has a doctorate in evolution, he thinks we will be extinct by 2100 or, at best, on our last legs and struggling to exist as a species. He is about 75, has been in this field since his late 20s, he knows his stuff.
I consider that scenario a worst case.
What is being said, by me anyway, is this.... on our current path, which has no real signs of changing much, our global civilization will collapse within 20 years.
The stresses on our systems will break, we will almost certainly collapse the Amazon, there is a reason chance a methane burst will happen, corals will all but be gone, ocean acidification will wreak havoc on ocean species, and we might even pile on with a world war because we just don't seem able to help ourselves.
By 2100, we will be a bunch of semi isolated nations without complex infrastructures and living more simply than today with little chance of a return to what we have today because the means of this global society is petrol. Without complexity, petrol isn't possible. Without global interconnectedness, renewables are not possible.
With an unpredictable climate, we don't get to have what we have again.
That is not a worst case scenario, it is plausible.
It could be better, but that requires a global effort that is co ordinated and focused. Anything less is going to see a situation not dissimilar to what I have described above. I don't think I will be 100% correct, but the overall scenario over the coming 50 to 70 years will be some iteration of it.
I have yet to see anything that suggests a collapse wont happen.
And we have no real idea what is coming our way.... oddly, I base that on what the IPCC is saying, which is a watered down version that is consistently under estimating the consequences and speed of change.
