Surely the folks in these groups are aware that it is too late and that protesting only serves to polarize others. A best case scenario: humans are functionally extinct by 2050. There's nothing that will mitigate the impacts of an ice free arctic.
I don't think it's crazy to understand that the cessation of seasons causes an inability to grow crops on a scale necessary to feed 8 billion people and that starving people will not just choose to die peacefully. Good luck.
I think a bunch of people are going to die, yes. I also think, like a lot of experts who have studied the issue, that action now will produce effective results from among some different possibilities, not all of which are extinction. There's still a potentially drastic reduction in the level of horror that's involved in the outcome, largely because the outcomes at the bad ends of the possibilities are so, so bad.
That's why I use the example of the zombie movie. You're trying to argue that because the situation is horrible (which, yes, it is), it's okay to resign yourself and everyone else to an even more horrible future, and you're actively trying to discourage people who are trying to at least do what they can. I think that's a stupid and counterproductive thing to do.
Even if we stop 100% of emissions, the global average temperature will continue to rise. There is no stopping the melting of arctic sea ice. We will have a blue ocean event in less than 2 decades.
If we do stop 100% of emissions, we doom ourselves quicker because of the lack of aerosol masking. Plants and animals can't adapt quickly enough to survive abrupt global warming.
We're achieving a faster rate of warming in a matter of decades than the PETM that took tens of thousands of years and ushered in a mass extinction event.
Rebel against extinction all you want, but we're not long for this world.
The science of domino effects regarding climate is not set in stone or even fully understood. It could be really bad, or it may not be as bad as some suspect. I don't really see the utility in assuming the worst of something that could be fixable, or at least mitigated.
Personally, I'm going to look at the proposition of complete and utter doom with a healthy dose of skepticism, and continue to try to make things better where possible.
Out of curiosity, why do you consciously choose to discourage others from trying to make things better? I guess if I thought we were all doomed, there wouldn't be much point in telling others that we're doomed, since it'd be irrelevant anyway. I'd just do my own thing and attempt to live my life to the fullest ability that I have.
I'm all for radically changing the way we live and limiting our emissions as much as possible. I also understand that it's likely futile, because again, no action will prevent the arctic sea ice from melting, and nothing will mitigate the effects from that loss of ice.
Protesting and making noise doesn't convince anyone. It only polarizes people that disagree with you, and pushes people that were on the fence over the other side.
