Very frightening BBC documentary

[JohnD]

You could also ask yourself, what's the chances of the vast majority of climate scientists throughout the world entering into some vast conspiracy to put out false information?

How would they do it, and what would they gain?

Then ask yourself, if the prosperous companies in the fossil fuel business saw a risk to their profits, would they have anything to gain by putting out the opposite?

 

[noseall]

I haven't got an agenda but you need a new alarm clock boyo.

Still functioning on Greek-o-clock.

 

[wobs]

That's right but I'm not dancing around the internet just for you to poo poo it. Unless you live under a stone
I'm astounded you are even questioning such a thing.

Ad hom. If you can't back up what you say etc.

There are an estimated 9 - 15 million scientist in the world, a lot of them are professors and about 79% or thereabouts of them say that man is the main cause of global warming and is using up an unsustainable amount of fossil fuels which along with other factors are having an unparalleled negative affect on the planet, never seen before. Another couple of billion people forecast in the next 50 odd years isn't exactly going to help matters. Oh wait it is, how silly of me.

Let's start with the fact that 97% of climate scientists claim AGW is real, and that it is indeed real.

This is completely different claim to "the Earth's population is spiralling out of control."

Population growth is not the main driver to AGW, it is economic growth. If a couple in Chad have 6 kids, the carbon footprint is a fraction of what a couple with 1 kid in the US would cause.

But even then, AGW is solvable (albeit with difficulty). If we stop burning coal, go nuclear/renewables, we will still have the same population growth, but with less CO2 in the atmosphere.

 

[JP_]

The climate is changing, that is obvious if you look at the news, weather etc.
The question is, how do we cope with this news? There's no point arguing about why it is happening (although making some attempt to reduce carbon emissions makes scientific sense) but really we should be asking how the worlds population will manage - most people live by the coast, these areas will suffer rising sea levels and increased storm damage.
But we'll probably just stick our heads in the (increasingly hot and turbulent) sand and later on moan about the hundreds of millions of climate refugees screwing up the economy for everybody else.
Top tip: run to the hills - or, if you are planning to buy or develop a property for long-term living, check how high above sea level it is, impact of flooding on rivers and infrastructure etc (roads, will they flood?) before moving. Might sound crazy, but 50 years from now things could be very different.