Greenland ice sheet is close to a melting point of no return

So I looked through Climatebase, and I found it hard to evaluate the companies listed. There's plenty of listings, but no (easy) way to say, "Show me one entry per company, for every company hiring engineering leaders." I either got drowned in "this company has 35 reqs open, so here's 35 entries" or "you've narrowed your filters so much that you only see two companies".

Not quite easy to figure out "Which set of companies are hiring for a role I can fulfill?"

Edit: And within moments, I of course find the URL to do exactly what I want: https://climatebase.org/organizations?l=&q=Engineering%3A+So...

Biking is demonstrably more efficient than walking. And electric bikes are even more energy efficient than biking.

Sure, manufacturing a bike takes some energy, but there's huge value in people using e-bikes to get everywhere.

These reports are the modern versions of the men walking around the city with sandwich boards proclaiming the end of the world [1]. When you asked them what it was which made them believe so you'd get some rambling story of how the lord had given them signs in their breakfast porridge, ask these climate prophets what makes them believe the point of no return has come and they point at their models which have shown them the end is coming. The difference between these two is that the former at least got a good breakfast out of their medium.

Is the climate not changing then? Of course it is, always has and always will. Do humans not influence the climate then? Of course they do, especially since the industrial revolution. Does this portend a catastrophe? Well... there opinions vary. I'm convinced the changing climate will poise some problems which will be dealt with - just like humans have always dealt with the changing climate. The difference here is that there are more humans - which could make things more difficult - who have more advanced technology - which will make things easier. Assuming cooler minds prevail and the sabre rattling around the world does not lead to a bigger conflict I'm convinced humanity as a whole will make it through whatever changes the climate makes to come out richer and more advanced still.

Would we be better off if we were not as reliant on fossil energy sources? Yes, we certainly would given the pollution - and I'm talking about true pollution here, not CO₂ - involved in the winning and use of these sources. Build more nukes, get serious with fusion, develop a sane form of hydrogen storage, go for it. Not because of the climate boogeyman but because of the above reason as well as the fact that these energy sources are concentrated in some of the more troublesome regions in the world where they have already led to numerous conflicts.

Do I trust climate models? No, I do not and with reason. I did study this stuff a few decades ago when the models were 'less advanced' than they are now. I know of too many fudge factors in these models, too many adjustments which are made to make them follow the observations where the reason for and effect of those adjustments are not understood. From what I have been able to keep up with things are not much different now - apart from far faster computers and more complex models with more parameters and their accompanying fudge factors.

[1] https://therionorteline.files.wordpress.com/2018/07/lead64.j...

> Why do people still think ...

Because people haven't come to terms with the fact that humans are not Children of God nor disembodied Cartesian rational calculators, but actually a loquacious and smartish hominid, designed by selection for small group interaction. There is nothing to suggest this species is capable of planet-level cooperation towards a communally-decided end.

Add to that the fact that path-dependent history has placed that species today in a situation where it's organised into huge 17thC mutually-hostile groups ("States"), incapable of anything more than opportunistic cooperation because of their religious and anachronistic founding concept ("sovereignty"). Most people have no idea that this contingent organisation is not the natural and inevitable state of the world, so aren't open to the possibility that it dooms them to sclerotic inability to face today's challenges.

>> Trust in governments would evaporate

I am unclear why anyone ever trusted government or believed government would be the avenue for resolution of this problem

You either understand history, or you trust government, you can not both understand history and trust government..

The second people put their trust in government was the second humanity was fucked. In the best of time Government is like fire, is a troublesome servant and a terrible master.

>the purpose of a government is to keep us all safe

When has that ever been the case... The purpose for government is to provide a framework for non-violent dispute resolution, and to safe guard natural rights and property), and maybe form a national defense force. Not to provide individual safety and security.

>>Currency would lose its value, because it assumes that there will be a future better than the present where you might want to buy things.

No fiat currency actually needs the future to look worse than today to encourage spending today and discourage saving for tomorrow. This is why fiat currency required inflation, and why deflation is feared above all else with fiat currency. You have to have spending today, you have to have people spending in multiples of what they really have in currency (i.e debt spending) and you have to have that in perpetuity.

In short, Fiat Currency is a legal pozi scheme that is destined to fail at some point anyway....