I'm gonna go with a guess and say "Ummm, no."<p>I did, however, look up the folks who wrote this. Climatologists? Nope, some guy called Andrew Simms from some place called the New Economics Foundation. These are the same guys who made up that "Happy Planet Index" which got a bunch of press a few years ago by ranking the countries of the world from best to worst according to various bullshit criteria with carefully tuned weightings (Cuba was fifth, the US was 150th slightly behind Ethiopia and Burkina Faso). The guy is currently billing himself as "head of the climate change programme at the NEF", but as far as I can figure out he's also "director of policy" and wrote or co-wrote most of their other publications. I can't find any reference to any actual academic qualifications other than the fact that he "studied at the London School of Economics".
I ditched the article after the writer failed to understand the rationale behind the naming of the common scientific behavior known as "positive feedback." Clearly alarmist BS.
Hmmmm.... if change is irreversible, then shouldn't we just start partying it up?<p>It will probably take few centuries before the earth start getting inhabitable, so us, our kids, and our grand-kids will be fine. They will have to put up with droughts, flood,etc, but they will be able to cope.<p>Ah, and earth will be fine. There have already been 3 cataclysmic events, where 90% of life died (65-70%, on the latest one), and earth just recovered from it, with new dominant species.<p>So, earth will recover from this too, just not with humans on it.
While I am all in to prevent further damage to Earth ecosystems and to fix whatever has been broken, and to switch to renewable energy, lets not forget the Russian scientist predicting an imminent new small ice age akin to that of the middle ages, related to the Sun's emission cycles. We may end up needing to pump CO2 to the atmosphere <i>in purpose</i>.