Interesting Dialog in the Comments Section with Guy McPherson, the Extinction fella -
Guy McPherson: This is the most ignorant film I've seen in a long time. 2C is locked in, and it's a political target, not a scientific one.
A: "Most ignorant film"???? Clearly, you have not taken the time to watch true science denial drivel. Watch a Monckton speech, for example, or Marc Morano's "Climate Hustle".
Guy McPherson: Excellent point. I stand corrected.
Oliver: Why pick this battle? I don't understand. Why not allow them their hope?
Jim: Guy, What's wrong with setting a goal? And why do you think it's ignorant?
Oliver, I hope you know we're all living on the same planet.
Guy McPherson: They're misleading every viewer. The truth is valuable, at least to me. This is wishful thinking. There's no way to avoid 2 C: it's locked in, as indicated by abundant evidence. Tim Garrett's work from 7 years ago indicates only collapse of industrial civilization prevents runaway climate change. It's too late for that, now that we've fired the clathrate gun [methane release] and numerous other self-reinforcing feedback loops.
Climate-change summary and update
Oliver: I'm aware of that, and I dislike the extent to which these types of films tend to throw around "renewable energy" as some sort of panacea for the total anthropogenic destruction of every ecosystem on the planet, as if solar panels and windmills weren't made with fossil fuels, or could be maintained without them, or had no environmental impacts of their own, or made up for things like deforestation and over fishing and an all around commitment to waste that seems to be the hallmark of human nature.
On the other hand, if collapse of civilization your goal, then certainly a big energy tax and a shift to the actually-unsustainable "sustainable energy" sources seems like a decent way to ensure it comes to pass soon enough.
But more importantly, if it really is too late, as you say, then surely there's some better way to spend time than hating on some who would at least fight against the machine for that last shred of hope, in case the climate models aren't perfect, or to at least minimize the impact on future species which may survive us. A carbon tax is at least something.
Guy McPherson: Who's hating? I'm pointing out facts. Apparently people hate that!
Rob: You know, Guy, in the last talk I saw by Richard Alley, he suggested clathrate gun [methane release] was unlikely in the next century. I would suggest that it's you who is being overly alarmist here. You're taking an absolutist position in an area with huge uncertainties and low likelihood.
Greg Laden: Guy, that's a fairly obnoxious and narrow minded thing to say! Yes, actually, 2 C is a political target, as well as a policy-related target and a number somewhat arbitrary but picked out by scientists as an important level to avoid.
It is not locked in, but it could be. There are two ways that could happen, each coming from a different end of a spectrum.
1) We can listen to Andy Revkin. Revkin says global warming is nasty but we can deal with it, so chill. His imaginary airbag will save us from that crash, or make it survivable. If we listen to Andy, we don't bother doing much about fossil Carbon release and then yes, we lock in 2C
2) We can listen to Guy McPherson. Guy says that we are beyond the point of no return, that no matter what we do we have an extinction level event in front of us. If we listen to Guy, we won't bother doing anything because it is too late. And then, yes, we lock in 2C.
Or we could try to fix this.
Guy McPherson: The science indicates 2 C is locked in. Read this and tell me where it's incorrect:
Climate-change summary and update
Randall S: If you want a good example of huge uncertainties and low likelihood, just look at the forecasts by most General Circulation Models, in regards to temperature. Soaked the American taxpayer for $Billions, once again.
Guy McPherson: Richard Alley apparently pays no attention to scientific data. The clathrate gun [methane release] has been fired, according to abundant refereed journal literature.
Everybody here is ignoring Tim Garrett's excellent work indicating only collapse of industrial civilization prevents runaway climate change (in a paper written seven years ago). I suppose I'm the only person commenting here who is working toward that goal.
Greg: I have read that, Guy, and I agree with about a third of it (related to climate change ... putting aside discussion of talking about climate change, trolls, etc.).
Guy McPherson: With what data do you disagree?
Randall S: We can't allow climophobes this indulgence, because increasing taxes and increasingly misdirected human resources are costing $Billions in lost productivity in a nation which can't afford to flush it's future down the toilet.
mgreshis: I read your link. It's tinfoil hat bullshit about Extinction.
Guy McPherson: With what data do you disagree?
Rauni: I tried to read through at least part of the data that You have gathered. It is very unsettling reading: as a human being it is hard to even consider the fact that the human race might be heading to an extinction. One way or another, I am not educated enough at the moment to agree or disagree with You, or Oliver Tickell on the proposition that "On a planet 4 C hotter than baseline, all we can prepare for is human extinction". But I will try to educate myself. But even to my ignorant mind it is clear, that:
Self-Reinforcing Feedback Loops (all 39 (!) of them that You mentioned) are accelerating the climate change, and we are not on a course to slow them down, but are even accelerating the tempo.
I encourage everyone to read the data provided by Guy. Of course, everyone should and will make their own conclusions, but the raw facts demand the attention of the humankind.
Stephen: So basically from that logic, we should just ignore GHG emissions and let the fossil fuel industry have immense power over us and our daily lives. Really, I don't even care if climate change is rubbish, I want to take power away from big oil. And working on climate change is an excellent way to do that. I also want our economies to become much more localized, seeing as how the economy of my home town was decimated because of globalization. Globalization, which was made possible by cheap energy.
Stephen: We're flushing our future down the toilet by being pawns for the energy sector. [...]
Guy McPherson: I left the easy life of a tenured full professor to live in an off-grid homestead. From here, I work to terminate civilization (the only way to prevent runaway climate change, according to abundant scientific literature). Don't judge me, and I won't judge your lunacy.
Randall S: Even gasoline from coal helps sustain the international marketplace, so if you've ever consumed gasoline or diesel from any global source, you've been an equal part of this 'problem'. It's highly likely that in the process of mixing stock grades at refining, you've even become a direct consumer of this coal product.
Sorry to give you the bad news, but with easily over one million types of consumer, medical and industrial products now produced from oil, coal and gas, it's highly likely you
have sucked [...]. Since antibiotics and quite a few other medications are partially a petroleum product and even the syringe is a coal/oil/gas product, you've probably even been to a hospital or doctor's office and been injected with [...]. And I could have been really nasty.
Sven: Guy, I am a bit puzzled. Do you believe that 'terminating civilization' from an off-grid homestead will be better and more feasible than trying to change civilization from within? What do you mean by terminating civilization?
[Guy McPherson exited before this juncture in the conversation thread.]
LINK:
Climate Deniers Are Giving Us Skeptics a Bad Name - Fred Singer
If you honestly don't know the difference, and are genuinely asking for clarification, here is the first link I came across for you. Might help you if you do the Quiz in the link. 
