Alright, continuing with this theme about the current culture that surrounds Collapse, Nature Bats Last and Guy McPherson are about as severe as it gets. McPherson has calculated that the human species will be extinct by 2032. Yes, he has put that date on it.
And this,
Alright, I have to emphasize once again, McPherson's emphatic certainty is that we are extinct by 2032. There is no hedging it. Dead and gone by 2032. No arguments.
Please locate and excerpt for us where McPherson had made such a claim. And please provide us with its date of publication and a citation link.
He has said no such thing in any of the links you've provided, though he did say that he "...concluded in 2002 that we had set into motion climate-change processes likely to cause our own extinction by 2030."
So, why would you so mislead us? Could it be perhaps that one who was invited by McPherson to post an article on his blog who was later banned by him might have an axe to grind?
Especially after linking us to this he wrote, "He continues, saying, "I mourned for months, to the bewilderment of the three people who noticed." And then, shortly thereafter, "I was elated to learn about a hail-Mary pass that just might allow our persistence for a few more generations: Peak oil and its economic consequences might bring the industrial economy to an overdue close, just in time. Like Pandora with her vessel, I retained hope." And he goes further, explaining ways we could avoid calamity for generations, if not far longer.
You would have appreciated Hugh's posts.Fear and fear-based politics, do not tend to serve the left in the way that they serve the right. The idea of a cleansing catastrophe flows naturally from reactionary politics. The right thrives on fear. And it has a simple solution for the alarmist scenarios that it is constantly invoking: scapegoat the “enemy”—whether immigrants or other easily targeted populations—and demand authoritarian fixes. These do not work for the left (nor should they). Fear tilts right. Leftists enter into fear mongering at their peril.
I have been observing this budding Collapse Culture for several years now....very closely, actually, and I've spotted a trend manifesting.....a disturbing trend. It was my intuition that led me to research the issue further, and that intuition has been validated. Once you acknowledge it and become consciously aware of it, the clearer the patterns become.
And this is what your intuition has brought to us?:
Anti-Immigration Groups Founded and Backed by Radical Environmentalists and Population Control Activists
This post is non-factual. It is a fear mongering meant to inflame supporters to despise environmentalists. It is a fine example of misleading a constituency through using fear as a tactic. It is in fact, fascist.
To call Tanton a radical environmentalist or a supporter of radical environmentalism is a profound absurdity. He, or rather his foundation is employing Greenwashing to make a far-right agenda seem a bit green for contributors unaware of his or his foundation's agenda, which certainly endorses eugenics being applied to those he or they deem an obstacle to their unlimited profit. "Eliminate all who cannot pull themselves up by their bootstraps," disregarding of course, the fact that many could only wish they had boots. Of course, those born into wealth would be exempt from such a challenge and would by birthright be immediately accepted as boot-strapless peers.
I'm sure you well researched RI before posting here and would thereby know I am an environmental activist. To me you are an obstacle, which like most, should be avoided whenever possible, but when avoidance becomes impossible, confrontation is called for using factual evidence to discredit the false claims of another.
"Compromise is often necessary, but it ought not to originate with environmental leaders. Our role is to hold fast to what we believe is right, to fight for it, to find allies, and to adduce all possible arguments for our cause. If we cannot find enough vigor in us or our friends to win, then let someone else propose the compromise, which we must then work hard to coax our way. We thus become a nucleus around which activists can build and function." -- David Brower
You wrote, "I would argue that it could make matters worse, not better......and if that possibility exists, and I believe it does exist and is a strong possibility, then what would one's motive be for trying to convince people of their imminent doom if not downright cruelty?"
While many are aware of global warming, we do not need to adapt to it, we need to survive it. And to survive it, radical societal changes must be adopted quickly. We could begin by relocating our population centers, which are all along coastal areas as well as rivers, but some would rather let people just fend for themselves. Not my problem. Let the supporters of this fascist system drown, some will say. While others work their asses off towards bringing us a vastly better world.
So far I've disagreed with most of what you've expressed in the few postings of yours that I've read and find your point of view not only repugnant, but erroneously based on personal bias. Uninformed.
If we do nothing to abate the ever-increasing billions of tons of carbon entering our air, we will realize the horrors you and I could imagine. And if you think there's a cozy bunk awaiting you and yours in one of our many FEMA camps, you'd be sorely mistaken. They've been built so our wealthy can be protected from the harm the masses will want to exact from their hides for allowing such a disastrous condition to have come about.
that's a pretty big assumption to make about someone who hasn't used this forum in a number of years and who doesn't know you from Adam. 
