Even if we do pass some kind of “tipping point” (and you need to understand that every tipping point is just an arbitrary line that climate scientists draw to try to draw people’s attention to the problem), we can still mitigate the damage. There is never a point where fighting climate change becomes worthless. The less we do now, the greater the damage will be in the future. That’s all there is to it. Tipping points are just a way of illustrating that.

Does not remotely address my point. We can always - always - work to reduce the harm caused by climate change.

The point where the harm could be reduced to “none” is decades past us. If that’s the point where you give up then fuck off. Climate change is actively causing harm as we speak, and it is still worth fighting. We can still make life better for ourselves and future generations.

The notion that climate change is some kind of runaway engine that will continue amok without any further human input is nonsense. Yes, I’m aware of ideas like “Permafrost methane bombs” and I’ve also done enough research to be aware that only a small fringe of climate scientists actually support those ideas. They’re flashy and exciting and get big press, but they are not widely accepted climate science.

What climate science shows is that the climate actually responds faster to reductions in CO2 than our older models predicted. That means that debacarbonization can have real and meaningful positive impacts beyond what we previously thought possible.

There is real damage already done, and there is damage that we cannot undo, but there is never a point where the problem goes beyond our input. The climate fight is always worth fighting.

This seems like the “comforting fantasy” to me. Or a terrible analogy.

This guy has no fucking clue about human beings and does not give a single shit about human beings. His opinion can be safely discarded

O damn, almost forgot about the water wars. Those were brutal. Before those people genuinely believed there was nothing bigger than a World War. The fools. Like if you’re still here in 2125.

every tipping point is just an arbitrary line that climate scientists draw to try to draw people’s attention to the problem

That is completely, utterly wrong. Climate scientists are talking about the physical concept of the tipping point, which is observed in nature and also comes out of their models. In climate, it’s the point at which reversing a change that originally happened over decades would take thousands of years. For example, this has been the huge concern with the Atlantic meridional overturning circulation (AMOC), which plays a large role in the climate of western Europe: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2791639/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantic_meridional_overturning_circulation

Especially read the sections about Stability and vulnerability, Effects of an AMOC slowdown, and Effects of an AMOC shutdown.

My point is, tipping points are absolutely not an arbitrary thing. They are very solid predictions based on the physics of the climate. We don’t necessarily understand exactly how close we are, even though we’re observing some effects of being close to them, but the impacts of crossing them will make climate change even worse and hence the alarm.

Edit: If anyone reads these links and your eyes glaze over and you don’t understand of word of what’s written, then you need the humility to listen and accept what climate scientists have been trying to tell you. Some of the smartest people on the planet have been working on this for decades.

Did he fly across the world on his private jet to announce this?

The comforting fantasy is the idea that we can throw up our hands and say “We lost.”

Losing is easy. It demands nothing from us. Losing has no call to action. If we’ve lost, then there’s no fight left to be fought.

The reality is that the fight is always worth fighting. And that sucks, because it means we never get to give up. We never get to say “It’s over”, and stop caring. Caring is a lot harder.

Suzuki is and always was just a mouthpiece for corporate masters. Controlled opposition to steer public opinion. He is not and never will be a climatologist. His message is one of defeat because his backers want us to give up.

Suzuki can kiss my white ass.

In not an appropriate analogy. We are not just the people in the car, we are the whole neighborhood.

Even if the people in the car cannot prevent a crash by braking, they can still prevent further damage to people and property by braking as much as possible while within their means.

If that’s what we’re meaning when we talk about “tipping points”, yes, they exist. But as you yourself said, “We don’t necessarily understand exactly how close we are.” The idea that passing some arbitrary line like “1.5 degrees” is a point of no return is unscientific nonsense, and that’s what the vast majority of people mean when they say “tipping points.”

And the point is, none of that changes the need to keep working towards improvement. Every fraction of a degree less the planet heats will make a difference. Even as monumental climate changes occur, those changes can be lessened, their impact reduced, by any amount that we decarbonise the atmosphere.

If you’re under the impression that I’m arguing against climate change being real in any way shape or form, or that I’m arguing against it being utterly catastrophic, you’ve missed my point so badly that you might as well be reading it in a different language. My point is very, very simple; there is never a point where we get to give up.

No matter what happens, every effort to reduce the damage to our climate will save lives. Things can always be worse, and because things can always be worse it ontologically follows that things can always be better, even when the definition of "better’ is “fewer people die.”

The fight isn’t lost or won. Get those concepts out of your mind. Suzuki - as brilliant as he may be - is an idiot for invoking them like this. He’s speaking about a very limited, very specific piece of the fight, but he should have understood that the public would take his words entirely out of context. The people who want to poison and destroy our planet for profit are, right now, actively pushing the propaganda that the battle against climate change is over. They are wrong, and they are lying. The battle against climate change is a battle to reduce harm, and you can always reduce harm, now matter how great the scale of the eventual harm may be.

“Too late” implies civilization collapse to me. That’s pretty much guaranteed once the warming we’re locked into happens.

And the solution is of course outlawing abortions, instead of keeping the planet in a habitable state.

I try to stay postive but we’re slowly burning and yet politics has never been so aggressively stupid about this. And the warlords dictating or culture too. I don’t want this.

If you gave up a long time ago, then why did you bother to write that comment? Clearly you haven’t given up.

Saying we have failed is the easiest thing to say.

Because its true?

Barely anything had been done these past decades and the result is that boat loads of people now believe conspiracy crap over the actual truth that climate change will milk us all

I fully expect that even less will be done in the next years so yeah, were screwed

I suggest actually doing something about it then. Direct your frustration towards something productive. Take the risk because if we don’t then no one will.

Here’s why your comment is horseshit:

The cost of solar photovoltaic (PV) technology dropped by 81% since 2009, and wind and battery costs have also plummeted. By 2017, most new power-generating capacity added worldwide came from renewables, not fossil fuels.

A comprehensive review of 1,500 climate policy measures across 41 countries found 63 cases of successful policies, each leading to an average emission reduction of 19%. The most effective policies combined tax and price incentives with regulations and subsidies.

Although global greenhouse gas emissions reached record highs in the 2010s, the rate of growth has slowed, in part due to climate policies and the adoption of cleaner technologies.

The Montreal Protocol (1987) successfully phased out ozone-depleting substances, demonstrating that coordinated global action can work. This agreement also had climate benefits, as many of the banned substances were potent greenhouse gases.

The water wars will start far sooner than that

I would say under ten years if we are talking about staying in “life as we know it.” Global food supplies are at risk. We are going to see mass die offs in large portions of the ocean. AMOC and the Jet stream will continue to wobble around causing mayhem. Coastale areas will become eroded and huge portions of the infrastructure will become unfixable as the disasters come too frequently for any real, long term repairs to remain.

Think about that term, tipping piont. Tipping does not imply a gentle decent.