Accusing me of magical thinking and then elaborating on or reiterating your point sort of closes the door on this discussion.

I could copy and paste a bunch of stuff, add a bunch of links. I don’t think it would bring us closer.

The scientific consensus (as I understand it and you’ve yet to convince me otherwise) is that global freshwater supplies are unevenly distributed but far from depleting; crop failures are regional and gradually being mitigated by advances in agriculture; oceans can still continue absorbing heat with severe ecosystem impacts, but there isn’t any reason to use language like “full capacity” limits unless you’re misrepresenting the facts to scare people; population growth is slowing, with consumption patterns, not numbers, driving resource strains.

I want to reiterate: you are not helping the issue by telling people the end is nigh. You’re also not being honest, so long as you’re claiming to have kept abreast of the way experts in these fields are talking.

I hear your concerns, man. But a cursory look at the current science behind how we describe things like BOE and Clathrate Gun don’t leave us with mere years between now and instant hotpot catastrophe.

I don’t think it’s useful (if your goal is to promote the mitigation of these events and a livable world for future generations) to catastrophise at that pitch and make it sound like we’re fucked.

We’re not fucked. Things are going to get a lot harder. A lot harder. Much badness. But we’re not fucked. There’s room to work here. And we need to start doing a LOT of work without making it sound like starting wouldn’t do us any good.

<Tinfoil hat>

Big polluters know their resources are finite. They’re deliberately cooking the planet because after some threshold has been reached, they’re going to pivot their enormous infrastructural and industrial capacities into geoengineering.

We’ll be paying BP and Shell to keep the planet cool eventually.

</Tinfoil hat>