Peter JH,
I see your point and it is a good one, however 1,600 scientists predicted what would happen in 1991 and gave their report to the UN. Almost half of these scientists were Nobel prize winners, my point is if we lay people don't listen to those brilliant minds, who should we listen to? We send our best and brightest off to Uni if we can afford it, they study, if they pass they get a degree, and go on to work in their chosen field, they gain experience and give an opinion. I can't speak for anyone but me, but if I am having trouble with my car I don't ask the butcher what it might be, I ask a mechanic.

We accept the mechanic's advice freely, yet we argue over the scientist's opinion, why? Because sacrifice and money are involved that's why, it seems inconceivable that we could create a new industry from greenhouse free means and fill the jobs vacuum by employing people in the new industry. This in conservative thinking, cautious thinking, we need progressive thinking on this issue not for us but for our children, and their children.

It is quite appearent that modern lifestyles are unhealthy. In fact quite a large amount are suicidal. Yet, dumping greenhouse gases into the air is genecidal, and approaches misanthropic.

It is one thing to deny that tobbaco smoking is bad for your health, or that eating foods high in saturated fats is bad for your health, but denying our accelerating greenhouse gas pollution of the air is catastrophically bad for the health of the planet is in another class altogether.

The IPCC is coming out with the third report, prescribing things we can do to slow global warming. It acknowledges the inevitability of a 2.5C (or greater, because the IPCC is very conservative, and most likely underestimates the sensativity of the climate to CO2 increases) rise in temperatures.

Since Dr Hansen of NASA makes a strong argument for a 1C tipping point (450ppm CO2), and Sir David King thinks the tipping point is 2C (while acknowledging the political will might not be strong enough to avoid crossing that line), an almost 3C rise is tacitly acknowledging that most humans will die from runaway global warming in the next hundred years or so.

Until the world understands how serious this is, and chooses the risky solution strategy of genetically modifying nature to absorb much more CO2 from the air, we are on a trajectory to stop worrying about all other unhealthy lifestyle choices (i.e. near extinction, and a dramatic lowing of the carrying capacity of the earth to support life).

There are some things that are inevitable. One of those is that this earth has a finite lifespan.

It is generally accepted that life on earth will be impossible in less than a billion years, due to the increased impact of solar activity.

Well before this, human life will be extinguished, either as a result of our own self-destructive urges, or the gradual elimination of the resources we need to live.

So we are not talking about if, we are talking about when. And whether we extend human life here by one, or a hundred, or a thousand years, at some point there will still be a day when the last person shuffles off this mortal coil.

Given this inevitability, how - philosophically - should we prepare for it?

Articles like this one, collecting the comments and views that it does, can only see one solution, which is that we somehow revert to more primitive lifestyles in order to diminish our impact on the earth's resources.

It is a solution that appeals to our sense of fair play (why should we be so privileged in our use of the available resources), but totally ignores that thing we call human nature.

Human nature in this context follows closely Maslow's hierarchy of needs. Once we as a society clamber up the ladder, we are highly resistance to backing down again.

So, call it selfish, call it greedy, call it what you will. Unless and until you can find a way to alter human nature, there is no "solution" to this "problem".

We will all continue as we have always done. Make the best of the hand we have been dealt, and try to hand on to our own offspring the best chance to survive further that we can.

The end of civilization will be unpleasant, however it arrives. In the meantime, we will slowly but surely have to accept that life is going to become increasingly less luxurious, then less comfortable, then less bearable, until finally it becomes unacceptable. The only variable is the speed of the decline, not the decline itself.

Pericles, that post of yours was the most sensible I've ever seen in this "debate." You've hit the nail right on the head. I fear for my kids and grandkids. The only consolation I can take from all this is the fact that it's very unlikely I'll be alive to see the worst of either peak oil or Global warming.
Wildcat.

You're quite right of course, Pericles.

But what about space travel and colonisation? Or the Rapture?

More seriously, while the end is indeed inevitable, I don't think it hurts for the more optimistic among us to strive for ways that we might collectively delay it :)

What will happen in the Arab world if the West reduces its dependance on oil. Their main economic survival seems to depend on oil or do they have other resources that will see them through?
It could bring about a major collapse over there.

Hasnt the earth been covered with water before, so basically if the oceans rise it will not be anything new. Of course it will be a disaster for the generations that will be affected and I dont wish that for my future grandchildren and their children.

If the earth is covered in more water and it is hotter shouldnt that result in more rainfall. My scientific knowledge of this is not great only having watched the odd documentary or two on it so excuse me if I have totally got that wrong.

It seems to me that all of mans inventions are like a double sided coin there is always a huge benefical side and an equally huge down side. TAke the invention of motorised transport, the car etc. hugely beneficial on the one hand. Resulting in the deaths of something like 6million people plus the injured worldwide, on the other side of the coin.

MOdern medicine, saving our children and ourselves from dying young from disease on the good side of the coin but weakening us genetically by not weeding out the fittest for survival. Plus burdening society with longer living older people.

The industrial revolution , bringing prosperity to millions but causing massive pollution that is altering earths climate on the other.

Computers hugely beneficial, but also making the waging of war extremely efficient. Instead of more leisure time it has resulted in one person doing the work of two or more people via computer. The internet also has taken spying between countries to new heights.

I'm not advocating not seeking to improve our lives with research just pointing out that we always seem to have to pay a price for it.