I agree that the worst case scenario presented is extreme; but it is duly identified as a worst case scenario. In the original video he proposes that the view make a similar matrix with best case scenarios. When limited to the 4 options, the only case where where inaction is justified, in my opinion is would be selecting the best cases of non action and the worst cases of action.
As far as 'how bad it could be', I don't know. I don't know how much the world will change and I'll be one of the first to admit that I don't think I'm qualified to make accurate predictions. However, Ace, I'm familiar with the NG article you refer to, especially the 'map' insert. The real changes in temperature observed from 76?-2005 and the changes in the precipitation was one of the more alarming/effective graphical presentations that I've seen. I know that National Geographic is ecologically biased, but I still think it a credible source. I wasn't pleased with the emphasis of CO2, but it remains the most visible and effect-able variable.
I'm pretty certain that we'll hit the 1-2*C points, considering the current lack of action and the coal-fueled modernization of China and India. The decrease in standard crop yields and the corresponding increase in higher altitude/latitude crop yields is something we can adapt to on a global basis. I'm alarmed at the 30-40% of known species becoming extinct, the highly populated coastal areas being lost,and the decrease of fresh water supplies.
Further, changes in agricultural climates will be much more difficult to deal with intra-country. North America may do fine, assuming that Canada's future climate and water supply will be easily accessed by the US. The EU would be in a similar situation; but what would brazil do if it could no longer grow the critical sugarcane featured in the same article of National Geographic.
As noted in my previous post, there have been 3 followup videos. The first pretty much says nothing except that future videos will respond to critiques. The second and the third do so.
This includes a response to the selection of the issue (GM foods, Nuclear). And that the first matrix was oversimplified and didn't include options for non-human caused/unfixable global warming.
The third video in particular notes that there is a scientific 'consensus' (or as close as we are going to get) that climate change is real, very important, and that humans are contributing, and we should do something.
Ustwo, I know at one point I thought you were the resident 'human-related global warming denier". I honestly don't know if you are, were, or if I have you confused with someone else. The third video presents compelling quotes from peer reviewed publications. It does so in a manner aimed at the public, not the academic (I don't think he means to be condescending). That said, I would be very interested in reading your response to the video "Patching Holes #3"
Finally, I'm looking for real answers that the public could push for. I can't see us, as a global community, or even as a north American community, (or in particular, my oil and coal powered Albertan community) taking overly drastic measures. But what efforts can be taken to be 'better stewards' of the planet. Sure, I have high efficiency appliances and compact fluorescent lightbulbs and drive gutless low emission cars. But on my task list is the design for a large concrete pad for an oilsands railway loading platform.
Big ideas;practical ideas,etc. In theory, if I should ever join a lobby group pressuring my MP (member of parliament) for action, what action is there?