The great majority of climate scientists (I have heard the figure of 99% mentioned) are concerned that the climate is changing
Only 99% ? I'd venture to say if you walked into any ghetto poolhall or urban Mc Donalds and asked those present " IS THE CLIMATE CHANGING " ? you'd get a 100% response. It's what the climate does, and the climate WILL change whether man burns coal or simply farts a lot to heat his home. What I find incredibly nonsensical and arrogant is that some scientists think humankind can somehow buy the weather by throwing billions of dollars at it.
At one time, only a few years ago, the opinion was that by spending enough money warming temperatures could be reversed. Now the global warming industry's mantra is that we need to spend all that money to stabilize temperatures and keep the increase to about 2-3 degrees C.
Listening to people whose job it is to study these things seems quite sensible, if only for the sake of our children and their descendants. Refusing to listen would be simply crass.
Back in 1968 millions of people listened to an eminent scientist named Paul Ehrlich. His best-selling book, THE POPULATION BOMB, scared the crap out of people, made a talk-show and cocktail party guru out of Ehrlich and made him the global warming guru of his day.
Ehrlich's book contended that population growth had rendered the Earth incapable of feeding its people and that huge famines and mass starvations were in our near future.
Early editions of The Population Bomb began with this cheery statement:
The battle to feed all of humanity is over. In the 1970s hundreds of millions of people will starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now. At this late date nothing can prevent a substantial increase in the world death rate..
Jesus, at least the global warming industry gave humankind a few years. Ehrlich waited til we were all fucked before he published his book.
One of Ehrlich's more elegant ideas regarding how to mitigate the coming misery stated, " Countries with sufficient programmes in place to limit population growth, and the ability to become self-sufficient in the future would continue to receive food aid. Countries, for example India, which "were far behind in the population-food game that there is no hope that our food aid will see them through to self-sufficiency" would have their food aid eliminated.
Bye Bye, India.
Course, Ehrlich turned out to be just the latest nude emperor. His horror scenario never unfolded, India has a population of about 1.2 billion and is one of the world's most vibrant, growing economies.
As a final footnote, with more than a smidgen of irony, to the question put to him in 2004, "Were your predictions in The Population Bomb right?", Ehrlich responded, "I have always followed UN population projections as modified by the Population Reference Bureau -- so we never made "predictions," even though idiots think we have. When I wrote The Population Bomb in 1968, there were 3.5 billion people. Since then we've added another 2.8 billion -- many more than the total population (2 billion) when I was born in 1932. If that's not a population explosion, what is? My basic claims (and those of the many scientific colleagues who reviewed my work) were that population growth was a major problem. Fifty-eight academies of science said that same thing in 1994, as did the world scientists' warning to humanity in the same year.
Population projections from a UN bureaucracy, peer review of his work, and the "consensus" of 58 academies of science and untold scientists. Doesn't that part sound just a bit too familiar ?