Not racist, just a matter of numbers. Too many NUMBERS of people are coming in. I don't care if they are white, black, brown, yellow, green or purple. Global Warming is caused by TOO MANY humans driving vehicles that are burning fossil fuel. The US and China are the top polluters. So the solution would be to have fewer people driving and fewer fossil fuel burners. A centuries-old, great philosopher once said that wars and pestilence will control population. OK. As far as pestilence goes the US has already lost 1 million souls to the Pandemic and it's not yet over. And maybe it is cooking up another variant. Since we live in an interdependent world, things like trade and airline travel can spread diseases around rapidly. As far as war goes, the world seems to be devolving into 2 groups - free and dictatorship. That leaves a lot of potential for a nasty conflict. And China has a ton of people and not so much natural resources. And their rivers are drying up as are Europes and ours. (courtesy of G.W. - Global Warming)

As far as fewer people go......I would propose that besides tight borders and minimum immigration, the US could have started in about 1950 to give tax credits for ONLY 2 children maximum. Today that may have limited the US population to about 250 million, which would have increased the GNP per person and be about right for today's infrastructure. But, it may be too late now and we will be controlled against our will by wars and pestilence.
........All of that forms a base of a pyramid with Global Warming being closer to the peak with respect to the factors that have driven the last 7 out of 8 years to be the warmest on earth. And the further prediction for increases for the next 30 years. Meanwhile, we are ignoring warning signs like animal species extinction, ocean rise, and the coral bleaching effect. And there are numerous other signs being ignored !

OK, so you are guaranteeing no climate collapse in the next 10 years. I am guaranteeing that in the next 3 to 5 years that Florida will get hit with MORE killer hurricanes and preparation and lessons learned from Hurricane IAN will be MINIMAL. Miami will keep getting flooded. In 10 years the earth and the US will be much hotter with lots of fires and rivers and lakes drying up. Nuclear weapons will be deployed on regular basis. In 10 years wars and pestilence will be common factors. Also by 2100 90% of ALL coral reefs will be dead. Signed Nostrajimjam.

This is politically polluted and you are dwelling on a fossil fuel fixation which fusion energy would greatly reduce or in the long term, eliminate.

If reducing the population is the answer, why wasn’t China successful in this endeavor?

Your’s and my end date are looming and your climate obsession has taken so much of your time, life quality is missing. I would go into a longer explanation of why many of your statements are flawed but I won’t go political.

How do you get up in the morning? I guarantee the climate won’t collapse in ten years. I can’t guarantee you or I will be alive in ten years. I have no guarantees about nuclear wars but then that wasn’t the subject, was it? Have faith and be the positive force in the world and not the negative Nellie who can’t accomplish anything.

Ditto. It's amazing what 30+ years of propaganda can accomplish.

Consensus happens when there is agreement because the data supports it in science.

Show us the proof that no studies have been done. How much did man-made CO2 combined with the effects of all of mankind's worldwide activities and habitat distrution raise the overall average global temperature?

When consensus is reached, thinking stops. Einstein.

Furthermore ... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pOF7pPmMYY0

Even Einstein made mistakes.

Sorry. As is the legal system, one is innocent until proven guilty. Those who claim guilt -- such as 2nd hand smoke causes harm -- must produce the evidence. Otherwise, 2nd hand smoke is innocent -- by law.

You can't prove a negative...

Yet it can be asserted that there are invisible space aliens causing global warming :1rotfl::1rotfl::1rotfl:

Because of a Cold Front ... The Dec 15 Weather Club meeting is cancelled due to the threat of severe weather. However, the same talk (How The Oceans Influence Our Weather) will be given Dec 16 (Friday) at 4 PM at the Lake Miona Recreation Center for the Philosophy Club.

Just to be informative, I did not say ANYTHING CLOSE to political in my post that was referred to. Fossil fuel usage, excess CO2 production (that is producing ocean acids that are killing coral reefs, the earth's temperature increase, and China and the US being top polluters (making their populations most important in terms of trying to SOLVE problems associated with Global Warming!) Nothing about that statement has anything to do with any particular party and is neither political nor biased against ANY ethnic group or even religion.

As far as fusion is concerned I just yesterday hear a scientist say that the recent news, while important, is MERELY proof of CONCEPT. He listed SO many problems taking years to go from concept proof to practical application. Most likely, none of us will be alive to see electricity generated in practical quantities. If someone in Villageland wanted to do something constructive for their grandchildren, they would buy an electric golf cart.

As far as

It is a COLDLY calculated statement of PROBLEMS facing the WORLD. which are so LARGE and comprehensive that they make politics seem like a child's game. China does NOT even have political parties or Russia, but they DO have CO2-emitting fossil fuel vehicles. And Russia has a WAR machine that contributes NOTHING to the
world and wastes fossil fuel for the purpose of killing people and destroying grain and agriculture that the whole world needs. That is part of the war and pestilence PROBLEM that I have been speaking about. Compared to these world climate and other large problems, individual countries' internal politics PALE in comparison.

As far as China's past attempt at population control failing.......I am NOT a Chinese history expert. I believe that they MANDATED married couples to have only one child. Then people wanted ONLY male children and they were even killing female babies. Apparently, that was NOT a well-thought-out solution and they gave it up. I will give them credit for the concept of TRYING to equate their population with their resources at the time. But, they maybe should have tried some different solution like maybe (just spitballing here) having a LOTTERY to pick the parents to have children. Using CHANCE to determine parenthood would at least be fair and they could have ended up with about 50% males and an equal number of females. I am sure that someone in Villageland is more capable of discussing Chinese history that what I just presented.