It seems to me that - largely as a result of the IPCC stuff coming out recently - the media is starting to run stories to the effect that:
- climate change has already started to undermine crop yields
- it presents a clear and present danger on a global scale
- the timescale is being reined ever nearer for serious effects
- ongoing effects are acknowledged even in the current day (climate change has arrived)
To some of us, this isn't really new stuff - as we've been arguing (albeit without as much solid scientific backing as ideal) for much of this for several years now. However there used to be a lot of voices arguing against these views, and they seem to have gradually faded somewhat. Admittedly that's on this forum - where information and intelligence both run pretty high, particularly by online discussion forum standards and where evidence can win the day (it can't always), and where the discussion curve is head of the general public.
Having never been afraid to court controversy, this puts me in a slightly novel position as the old controversial views become increasingly mainstream - forcing one to look further ahead for the next new thing. After all, one doesn't really do anything much merely following the herd - one must get out a step ahead.
Hence I'm looking at the gradual seep of this rather dark information into the public consciousness and thinking - what happens next?
Now - some portion of us (maybe even a big or majority portion), repeatedly espouse the hope that there will be some magical public awakening (and even more improbable pulling together to solve the problem and continue with the modern world approximately as we know it) as a result of either this or increasingly catastrophic consequences.
However, I would argue that history does not support this assertion (and in any event the science also shows it to be an increasingly hopeless notion). There has been no concrete response to date to either the increasing spread of knowledge or the increase in frequency of catastrophic events.
Instead I think I can come up with another analogy - a fire suddenly breaks out in the middle of a crowded theatre. What happens next?
I would venture to suggest that human nature predicts that in the vast majority of instances pandemonium ensues, as people lawlessly fight to try to get to the fire exits to escape (with the net result that far fewer people make it out of the theatre alive than if they had organised in a selfless and disciplined manner to evacuate as efficiently as possible).
Accordingly, I see several negative aspects to increasing public awareness of the severity and imminence of these threats. I see a real risk that soon the policies of individuals and nations will be heavily influenced by this understanding in a generally unhelpful and negative way. While lip service may be paid to the notion of cooperation, I think actions will speak louder and we will see the same sort of selfish lawless jostle for position and fighting at the expense of others as we would typically see in the burning theatre.
The primary reason this will be unhelpful is that virtually all of these entities will be taking very short term perspectives that offer no meaningful future hope or improvement. Nations will vie for resources, and to secure their borders and populations. The wealthy will stockpile and try to find places they think they can be secure from the storm. Nobody will consider those who must come later.
This will also accelerate the onset of collapse as global markets and resource supply chains start to break down and competition replaces cooperation. I already have that assumption in my projections - and think it one reason I expect collapse far sooner than various others (like JimD).
While I'm interested in the controversy (and other views), I think it also worth noting that time to meaningfully act ahead of the curve - and in a considered and long term thinking manner - is running out. Give it a few years, and I daresay I shall need to try to find a new controversy - assuming we are still talking about this then.