Anyone here paying attention to the "Pink Slime" debacle. Pink slime is apparently being used to feed people. HORROR. People in the meat industry have figured out how to safely us previously unusable parts of cows as food. I always thought that was what sausage was, but apparently they have taken it to new levels.
The Pink Slime story could have been presented as "Amazing new sources of food leveraged".
Hansen et al have read too much science fiction which itself leveraged the science of the time. End of the world scenarios are common in SF. Earth often becomes a forgotten origin because we ruined it as a planet (or in the case of Asimov is specifically ruined to get people off the planet). Selling stories usually involves making something interesting happen. Telling the story of men and women toiling successfully to feed their children and get them educated doesn't sell a lot of copy. Getting a nice littler "earner" going involves telling tales that make people passionate.
IIRC, Asimov got people to populate the rest of the universe by making earth more radioactive. Heinlein discusses the counter claim though that it is the radioactivity of earth that made it a bastion of life (hinting that tweaking the radioactivity a little higher would not lead to mass migration, but might lead to increased evolution).
We should create a model and find out who (Asimov or Heinlein) was right. It will be a projection rather than a prediction, but we can right papers on our computer models "discoveries". The news agencies need stories. We can provide them.
The article seems to define 'catastrophe' as corresponding to the alarmist scenario that Lovelock was previously pushing, though many of us might think that a scenario where only a small fraction of the current human population survive as being a bit stronger than just being a catastrophe.
There is an interesting switch in the BBC's terminology in describing Lovelock. He has now become a 'scientific maverick', which is really what he was all along, but their new use of the term seems to imply they want him to be seen as having less credibility than before.
Previously when Lovelock was pushing the more alarmist scenario (and therefore serving the Green agenda) the BBC often exaggerated his status. For example in this article from 2004 Lovelock is referred to as 'Professor Lovelock' all the way through the article. (he isn't a professor, he's a self-employed scientist who has worked from home since the 1960s).