Anyway his NTE [near term extinction] theory is based [as for I can understand] on the assumption that changes are no more linear and that there could be an exponential acceleration.
Human race has already faced similar events [think to the last glacial age] and we are still here. Moreover, the biosphere is able to adapt and evolve [it has happened a lot of times in the geological history of the planet].
So … no, I think that in 2031 we will be still here …
That seems extreme.. I think our species might make our miserable way for another 100 years or so, but my bet is on 50 years. I think we'll pretty much destroy the planet without intervention; I think that's what the evidence is showing.
In many ways, McPherson is a photo-negative of the self-proclaimed “climate skeptics” who reject the conclusions of climate science. He may be advocating the opposite conclusion, but he argues his case in the same way. The skeptics often quote snippets of science that, on full examination, doesn’t actually support their claims, and this is McPherson’s modus operandi. The skeptics dismiss science they don’t like by saying that climate researchers lie to keep the grant money coming; McPherson dismisses inconvenient science by claiming that scientists are downplaying risks because they’re too cowardly to speak the truth and flout our corporate overlords. Both malign the IPCC as “political” and therefore not objective. And both will cite nearly any claim that supports their views, regardless of source— putting evidence-free opinions on par with scientific research. (In one example I can’t help but highlight, McPherson cites a survivalist blog warning that Earth’s atmosphere is running out of oxygen.)