So therefore, would you have us sit on our hands and do nothing about reducing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.
David

In 1690 the world population is thought to have been about 560m in 2019 about 7,700m. In the old days if water, food supply or hostile neighbours were a problem you just relocated a bit. They didn't need aircon, cars or toaster ovens. Whatever is causing increasingly severe weather now has to be managed in place.

Another reason to constrain CO2 is because one day we will run out of things to burn. We'd better get used to low carbon energy. Some pain now is like an insurance premium against grief later on.

The number of rent seekers grew when the money started coming in. What was that about money and the root of all evil?

Peer reviews? I watched a video a couple of days in which climate scam victim, Peter Ridd, said that peer reviews were rubbish. Papers might get read, bit there is no money available to replicate experiments, models etc.

International agreement to meaningfully and transparently cut CO2 emissions has remained elusive for well over 20 years and there is no evidence that this is about to change.

Thinking about things? Really? So, And given the climate is indeed subject to natural variations,i.e., the sun waxes and the joint heats up, then wanes as it has since the mid-seventies, and the joint cools down. Except that has not been the experience with 2017, a La Nina year, being the second hottest on record.

Moreover, we now have a melting tundra a brand new experience and a northwest summer ice-free passage, for the first time in living memory.

If there's one thing we can agree on Don? It is rubbish in rubbish out! And ignoring some of the data while making comparisons supported by actual solar variations, just does not stack this time and only explained by record CO2 levels and now way up there in uncharted territory.

It's said a government is only as good as the (rubbish in, rubbish out) advice they receive and act on! And ours has typically been a science free zone! So much for your invaluable (coal lobbyist) input Don!

I guess it has escaped your "expert" notice Don, but near neighbour, planet Venus is allegedly also in the habitable Goldilocks zone but is the hottest planet in the solar system.

And due, no doubt, to the fact its atmosphere is moisture laden CO2 and sulphides? Rather than its proximity to the sun

A few days ago I learned that one of the oil and gas-rich states, in the M.E. had deployed a vast solar voltaic array to produce unsubsidised power, cheaper than gas! 5 Cents PKWH!?

Yet there are vastly cheaper options than that, coal being one of them with ROM coal producing power for around 3 cents PKWH?

Or MSR thorium tasked as nuclear waste burners, able to get it down to a fraction of one cent PKWH. And paid for in total with other folks (waste disposal) money! As annual billions!

Legitimate problem with that outcome, Don?

If one were constrained to the best science, best economic argument alone and on the safest option available, the latter would win hands down!
Alan B.

Thinking about things? Oh, I see! And explains the strange burning smell and the fact that the smoke alarm has gone ballistic!

You'll have a nice day now, y'hear.
Alan B.