My prediction is that 20 years from now these shills and their pronouncements of impending doom will be seen as just as self-serving and shortsighted as the promises of an impeding ice age and the end of oil were in the 1970's.
There are lots of key words in this article like carbon, major extinction, tipping point, mathematical model, and a few more. Nothing about pollution, over population, starvation, uncontrolled migration or war which are much more pressing to the current generation. Unfortunately for the con artists there isn't much money to be made or power to be grabbed by cleaning up pollution while over-population, immigration, and war are just chess pieces in the game of politics. That pretty much just leaves the carbon tax as the money maker and those controlling it as the power brokers. When I start reading about a new national rail system, more efficient mass transit or major upgrades in the power grid then I might start to believe our leaders are really serious about global warming.
I have a problem when either events in past history or even knowledge of the universe is stated as fact. How do we know there have been only 5 mass extinctions. Perhaps there were more. Would it not be better to just say 5 known mass extinction events? Are we that full of ourselves that we think we know everything?
An article I read a short while ago was about the largest star in the universe. Really? We have no idea how big the universe is. If they had said the largest known star, or the largest start found to date in the known universe, that would be better.
It just really turns me off and most often, I don't even finish the article, since I wonder what else they are stating as fact, when really it isn't.
We need to state our facts based on what we know today, right now. There is much yet to still be discovered, and best not to imply that everything we know is carved in stone.
By the time the ignorant deniers get their heads out of the sand it will be too late for all. The baby boomers,especially the 1 %er's, have to be the most greedy,narcissistic generation ever. Not any concern about leaving a clean,healthy planet & resources for future generations. Our current disaster of a president & Congress is a perfect example. Mother Earth could care less,as it will spin on & continue to evolve. Time for us is indeed running out by our own short sighted stupidity. If not this,then other reasons mentioned below by Bob.
Interesting assessment by MIT and the use of math to predict the future. To commentor Bob, after reading the book "Democracy in Chains", by Nancy MacLean, about the stealth takeover of all 3 branches governance, funded by Koch Brother David and Charles and academically supported by Libertarian such as Jame Buchanan, dont count on our government to do anything against the bidding of well funded industries, such as oil. Instead, expect anonymous operatives such as aki009 to keep the public skeptical of science based predictions.
Actually Bob, you can merge the two. If we don't take care of the issues you raise, and more importantly, tackle the root cause which is an unsustainable economic model, the number if unstable countries and disaffected people will grow. This will then make cohesive efforts to rein in coal power, deforestation, pollution etc harder and harder. As the rich get more jumpy, the chances of global action will drop and so on and so on. We need a new system, something that regulates growth choices.
Aaaah I love the deniers, blame it on everything other than the petros. We live in a freaking bubble floating in a void. The carbon we burn that was stored within the rocks as liquid doesn't magically go away. It is added to the system. Every car that passes by, every time you flip a switch, everytime your future burger bealches adds more carbon to the bubble. What he is saying is there is a time when the OCEANS become acid from all the carbon. That's the extinction level event, not a rock hitting us, not a volcano going nuts, the fricking OCEAN becomes uninhabitable.
That's when we all go bye, bye and sadly you are all happy it won't be you. Course it's your kids but who cares about them anyway?
Hmm. It started as Global Warming, then the name was changed to Climate Change, and now it's Tipping Point. So now we're all gonna die because I drive a Toyota pickup instead of a Chebby Bolt, eh? Sorry, but I don't buy the Rothman line any more than I bought Algore's line (which has since been proven entirely wrong.) I'm a Baby Boomer and learned about the ecology in 1970. Since then, I've done more for the eco system than any millennial is liable to in his lifetime. It counted more back then because things were dirtier. But I'll be d*mned if I'm going to give up natural gas for my heater, gasoline for my truck (which I need, and only drive 3,000mi/yr, or I'd have a Tesla 3 by next month), and coal or nuclear power in addition to renewable energies for my lights. I'm already losing 15% in gas mileage to that darned corn ethanol that costs so much. Anyway, to MIT, I say NEXT, and go back to my small footprint life. My 1,125W of solar helps, too.
Correlation is not causation. If the approach would have been scientifically correct, then one should know that making such a (model based) prediction must be backed up by an explanation of the mechanisms behind it. In all the major mass extinctions that we know of, earth was covered in a cloud of "dust" (like when a major vulcano erupts). Of course that went hand in hand with a major injection of CO2, dust and other gases (like SO2) in the atmosphere. This caused a major disruption in the amount of energy that we get daily from the sun. Why was that not analysed in the model? Today, we also have a kind of mass extinction going on. As far as I can see, this his not so much to do with CO2 but with overpopulation resulting in overfishing, overhunting and destroying vegetation (read: habitats for a lot of life forms) because in developing countries, people need the wood to cook and heat themselves. The analysis I present has nothing to do with being a "denier" or an "warmist", but simply with trying to analyse the facts and how a scientific approach can helps us in finding the facts. Clearly, being a professor at MIT is not a sufficient condition.
Bill McKibben and 350.org have offered a simpler yet convincing math using only 3 figures: We can emit 565 more gigatons of carbon dioxide to hopefully stay below 2°C of warming — but burning available fossil fuel reserves would emit 2,795 gigatons of carbon dioxide — five times the safe amount. Let’s face it: Fossil fuel companies are planning to burn it all with no regard for impending collapse.