A warmer climate has a relationship to insect populations, but what is much more significant for insect population crashes is the burden of pesticides, like the neonicotinoids which are indiscriminate, and nerve-gas derived poisons (organophosphates) aimed at particular agricultural pests, but which then drift, spread, and poison non-targets. Then there are the insane lawn care people that put down poisons to get rid of ants--ordinary black ants that make the little round sand circles on cracks in the sidewalk. Another enemy of insect populations is mono-culture--endless fields of corn, soybeans and wheat, and nothing much else.

Please don't post any more pictures of giant yellow jacket colonies. I can stand a few small round hives on the ceiling of the garage, which I generally let live, but giant house-invading, car-engulfing super-colonies look too much like the Supreme Growth of science fiction nightmares.

Surely all I need to do is add one other factor, which I was hinting at when I asked the question about where do the people who live in cities, which will find themselves below sea level, go, and what will they eat? ( perhaps you can answer this question now). The other factor is human conflict.

As to what we're going to do about it, well we can hope that world leaders will get together soon and start to formulate some plans. It's not looking very promising at the moment, but once there is money to be made in the green economy things might improve. More worrying though is the lack of foresight in regards to sea level rise. There are still many sea level developments continuing, along with building in flood plains. I wonder when real estate values will start falling on low lying property.

As I explained earlier, primates evolved at a time when the earth was so warm there were no polar ice caps. It's not going to get warmer than that. What did you think was going to happen? The oceans would just boil away and the earth would turn into a small star or something?

Have you considered how easily a civilisation can fall into a free for all between warlords? There is plenty of evidence in the historical record. Any high tech development, or industry will be straight out of the window. We will be straight back to a medieval lifestyle if we're lucky. Large areas will probably descend into waring states like Syria, or Somalia, or worse.

So we can probably agree that large numbers of people will die, there will be great suffering and injustice. Experiences which don't lend well for mutual cooperation. There is in fact as I'm sure you are aware, great suffering already, around the world and climate change has barely begun to affect the environment so far.

So we are going back to a primitive existence in short order, unless drastic action is taken soon to reduce global warming and it may be to late already. Agreed?

where do the people who live in cities, which will find themselves below sea level, go, and what will they eat? ( — Punshhh

It might be interesting to compare the number of cities affected by sea levels to those so far removed they experience nothing. It’s also worth remembering that cities do not produce their own food, so they would get food from the same sources they always do.

And why warlords?

So the people in question will move into these inland cities. I think the residents might have something to say about that. At the same time if some of the scientific predictions which will affect the growing of crops make it difficult to grow food, while these people are moving house, that might be problematic. Perhaps in countries like the ones we live in will be able to adjust ok, but many of the developing countries will have big problems.

Warlords are the natural socio-cultural state when a civilisation collapses, is it not?

I don’t think there’s any point bringing up facts and figures with you because you’ll just dispute that and it becomes an endless conversation of referencing. I resist your posts because I regard you as part of a destructive movement that does no one any good. What began as a worldwide discussion on temperature figures escalated into a doomsday view of life. To help clarify my position I’m copying my post to @Athena.

“It’s true that nature does work to keep things in balance, but it’s a dynamic planet so you can’t be sure of what exactly that balance is. My negative interpretation of your concern is that we can’t go back to your pagan way of life. The “hostile negativity’ is an effort to stop what I regard as a movement that will not help us or the planet, a movement incapable of dealing in reality and in the adaptability and extraordinary development of the species we are.

Of course we are capable of damaging the environment, just by our sheer numbers alone, and there has been a lot of work done to mitigate this damage. There’s little doubt that people are generally healthier than they’ve ever been. True, some people are still struggling, but not in the same way they have in the past.

What I find myself resisting is the doomsday mentality, not as extreme in your post, but still there by association.

“Even if the changing weather patterns did not lead to our doom, our refusal to live with the limits of our environments and the limits of the planet, will take us down. Just as every civilization before us fell, including the fall of Rome and South American civilizations.”

It’s a lack of faith in who we are that I object to and belief that it’s all over I find the need to resist. I don’t see it as helpful to pass this on to the next generation. Of course help them to understand the importance of our relationship to the environment, but don’t crush their hope or educate them through fear.”

Surely all I need to do is add one other factor, which I was hinting at when I asked the question about where do the people who live in cities, which will find themselves below sea level, go, and what will they eat? — Punshhh

According to John Steinbeck they'll starve and die of disease and it will be discovered that one family had some canned peaches and didn't share with everybody else in the shanty town and everybody got a gastric disorder called skitters from eating too many apples. All the while California poured truckloads of milk into the ocean and slaughtered and burned pigs and the vigilantes would identify where homeless people had planted potatoes on the side of the road and harass the government relief camps because they're socialist and then Rose-of-Sharon suckled a dying bum at her breast and Leadbelly was like: Washington is a bourgeois town. And then there was a war and Americans tried to help Europe and now everybody thinks that was a giant fucking mistake because Europeans hate us and we shouldn't have bled one drop for those assholes because they sure as fuck wouldn't piss on us if we were on fire. The end.

I get that you think I haven't thought about this at all. That's not true. I realize hard times are ahead for humanity. And the human species could cease to exist tomorrow. It's good to think of that from time to time. Tomorrow the asteroid might come and it will all be gone. How would you spend the day if you knew that was true? What would you do? Whose eyes would you want to stare into?

Anyway, my point was that it's better to keep the predictions in the range that climatologists accept. Too many people go overboard and nothing positive comes from that.

I didn't think that you hadn't talked about, rather you had not mentioned the elephant in the room. Also again you didn't mention what I referred to. Conflict in a land of rapidly diminishing resources. In an attempt to feed themselves and secure clean drinking water dense populations will effectively commit Hari kari. It might be interesting to consider what exactly might tip the balance. I presume you are aware of how quickly caring, loving, compassionate citizens can turn into ruthless killing machines (forgive the dramatisation, it just sounded to good to miss).

Would it be exploitative billionaires using populism to extract large amounts of money out of a country,(UK for example) causing civil unrest, so they can hide away in some lair.

Would it be mass migration on the borders of northern countries by people fleeing unbearably hot fire ravaged tropical countries.

Some massive catastrophic event.

As for your questions, I would carry on as normal, perhaps have a few sips of my favourite tipple and adopt the brace position. People like all other animals simply relax and accept the inevitable when faced with unavoidable destruction. Rather like drowning it is, a pleasant way to go.

Ahh, I see you and Brett saw me going overboard. I don't think I did, where might we differ?

So you are optimistic that we can somehow pull through without a collapse of civilisation and a return to medieval feuding warlords. I would like to share your optimism and look ahead to a bright future, but I look at the results of the climate talks in Madrid a couple of weeks ago and the rise in populism ( the PM in Australia, or Bolsonaro in Brazil) and I fear we are hiding our heads in the sand.

So you are optimistic that we can somehow pull through without a collapse of civilisation and a return to medieval feuding warlords. — Punshhh

Yes.

Yes

Is that because of human resilience in adversity, or that climate change won't be that bad after all?

Both.

Both

And what is the elevation of your house (assuming you are a home owner)?

Don't refer to things like "runaway climate change." What is that? It appears to be unnecessary fear mongering.

Yes the world will be very different in 500 years. Yes there will be a lot of pain and bloodshed aling the way. That's enough.

Don't refer to things like "runaway climate change." What is that? It appears to be unnecessary fear mongering.

Perhaps an irreversible cascade of greenhouse gas emissions is more appropriate. I expect to the folk on the ground the distinction would be of little concern.

Yes the world will be very different in 500 years. Yes there will be a lot of pain and bloodshed aling the way. That's enough.

Perhaps we should spare a thought for those millions, or billions, who will suffer, or have no hope of leading the comfortable lives we lead. Indeed perhaps we should be shedding a tear for the millions suffering today, admittedly not due to climate change, but rather man's inhumanity to man. Somehow I don't see the gathering climactic extremes we are beginning to experience helping these people, only exacerbating it further.

And when the rich and powerful, the exploiters, wake up and realise that they need to prepare their bunkers. What of the billions, who are currently just about managing, then?

And what is the elevation of your house (assuming you are a home owner)? — Punshhh

I live across the road from the beach.

Well I would advise you to sell up before the market confidence in sea level real estate disappears. I have recently moved to 56m and now I'm confident that my grandchildren will be able to sell for a good price, infact an inflated price because no one will buy anything at sea level, so demand above about 30m will increase.

I have recently moved to 56m and now I'm confident that my grandchildren will be able to sell for a good price, — Punshhh

Capitalist swine.

We'll be socialist swine by then. The Capitalists will have ripped us off and gone their bunkers by that point.

@ Janus:

one: The term "hard" as in "hard sciences" has no scientific meaning.

two: re: your words: "We cannot establish "facts" in the human sciences which can even "mean confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent." except when it comes to the most general observations."

Oh, BS. Psychologists have arrived at many specific conclusions that have many applications. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Applied_psychology
four: No, you didn't order anyone to shut up. You just tried to stuff the words "shut up" into my mouth. Disingenuous much?

I share your doubts about the political will to stall or reverse climate change.