Re: Doomsday clock
Posted by Mozzer on 25/1/2020, 7:04 am, in reply to "Re: Doomsday clock"
A lot of what was contributing to AGW was definitely well under way in 1991. Problem was that we hadn't understood those impacts and at that point in the way that the vast majority of climate scientists do now. |
Given the clock is an indicator of where we stand in relation to global catastrophe I think it's right not to take it overly literally. But the issue in this regard is that we are increasingly close to, if we've not actually passed, a tipping point on global climate change.
However, my understanding is that this has been moved for more than one reason. The clock was set up primarily as a way of assessing how likely it was that we were going to blow ourselves up in a nuclear war. Clearly time has moved on and we've realised we've invented other ways to destroy ourselves which are now reflected in the clock. Consequently, climate change has influenced this latest change, but the increased tensions across the globe which include countries with nuclear capabilities has also fed into their thinking.
Personally, I think a nuclear war is less likely than a global climate catastrophe at this point in time, even allowing for some of the, frankly unhinged, personalities involved in global politics, but I'm prepared to accept the implication that the world is becoming a more, not less, dangerous place to be.
It's so easy to laugh; it's so easy to hate
It takes guts to be gentle and kind.