Hasbeen and ttbn seem to have missed the point here. Eric Claus' argument is that we face far more immediate threats to our environment than global warming, and moreover, ones that we can actually do something about regardless of what other countries do. For example, population growth acts as a multiplier for most of these problems, and it is overwhelmingly (entirely in the long term) coming from mass migration, since our own fertility rate has been below replacement level since 1976. We have the capability to vote out Big Australia politicians.

So far as anthropogenic climate change (AGW) is concerned, I am not convinced that it is a non-issue. The climate scientists have passed stiff examinations in mathematics, physics, and chemistry. They have studied climate on a full time basis with the best instruments our technology can provide for years or decades. List of learned societies that agree on AGW

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

There are really only 3 alternatives:

1. The scientists are correct. Climate is far from fully understood, but they know enough to see big risks from dumping greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.

2. The scientists are telling the truth as they see it, but are mistaken because they are overlooking something important. Always a possibility, but no one so far has come up with a convincing argument.

3. There is a vast conspiracy to lie to us. Who organised all those scientists from all over the world, and why is there no evidence?

Stabilise the population? Same old, same old from the same writer who never ever seems to allow the facts to get in the way of his promulgated propaganda and patent BS. For him and his likeminded ilk, all they really care about is the trees and the animals, the rest can go take a running jump, or starve in order to reduce population numbers?

He says climate change is on us and nothing can be done without population reduction? What is he suggesting? A cull?

Cause from where I sit this same de-humanized message is endlessly repeated by the same obsessed Idealogues with an agenda? Nothing we can do about climate change they endlessly parrot in broken record rhetoric?

And completely without factual foundation. What we need is CHEAP, SAFE CLEAN MSR thorium power, coupled to deionisation dialysis, to revegetate the deserts of the world If would truly not just limit population growth but reverse it!

We need to raise average incomes in the most poverty-stricken countries and also educate the population and must include the female demographic! And as shown elsewhere, this same fundamental change actually achieves outcomes!

As opposed to Idealogues, giving vent to their par for the course, inculcated obsessions? The self-evident changes we need to achieve this same Author's wish list, are the same he and his ilk resist to the last breath!?

Waste of time casting pearls in his direction cause next time will come out trotting out the very same smelly verbal diarrhoea?
Alan B.

past idiotic prophecies by the ipcc and warmist have failed miserably. Now Eric wants us to believe the pseudo science that somehow they have it right this time. Actually the absolute moral decay in our society will bring this country down much quicker than imaginery man made gw. I suspect that many of the virue signallers are morally corrupt resulting in pushing these very flawed pseudo science. I wonder how many planes they will fly to their next luvfest.

AB,
The best, and ONLY, way to successfully solve a problem is to do something about the cause.
So stop tinkering with band aids on wounds and accept that there are TOO MANY PEOPLE!
People cause problems.
Full stop.

'So stop tinkering with band aids on wounds and accept that there are TOO MANY PEOPLE!'

feel free to make yourself extinct but leave the rest of us to enjoy this wonderful creation.

Alan B,

Apart from aquatic species, humans and their domestic animals constitute 96% of all mammal biomass. The biomass of domestic poultry, mostly chickens, is approximately 3 times higher than all wild birds put together.

http://www.pnas.org/content/115/25/6506

Why do you want to make humans and their domestic animals 100% of mammal biomass? When is enough enough? No one is proposing a cull outside of your fevered imagination. In any case, foreigners don't have to pay any attention to what we think. (I am not saying that we shouldn't help them if it is effective and they will accept the help.) What we can do is end Big Australia and not let other countries use Australia as an overflow barrel for their own overpopulation.

The most effective thing that an individual can do to combat global warming is to have one less child - by orders of magnitude.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/jul/12/want-to-fight-climate-change-have-fewer-children