Canadian Politics Today

In 1950s few people lived in the US south west because of "extreme heat". It is now the fastest growing regions thanks to technology (air conditioners) and the energy needed to keep the air conditioners running.

 You don't see the fallacy of that argument? You "solve" the problem of burning GHG's by burning more GHG's to run AC's.
I think they call that a vicious circle.

People have been repeating this kind of doom mongering for centuries. There is no reason to believe that the doom mongering today will turn out to be any more accurate than the doom mongering from the the past.

Of course we do. It's called science.

TimG ?  What the what ? 

World population has nearly doubled since the 70's. Are you saying population growth is no longer an issue? Do you think the planet can support an infinite number of people? You preface your argument on the principle we have learned nothing and are incapable of doing so.

"What needs to be done?" he wrote, "We must rapidly bring the world population under control, reducing the growth rate to zero or making it negative. Conscious regulation of human numbers must be achieved. Simultaneously we must, at least temporarily, greatly increase our food production." Ehrlich described a number of "ideas on how these goals might be reached."[6] He believed that the United States should take a leading role in population control, both because it was already consuming much more than the rest of the world, and therefore had a moral duty to reduce its impact, and because the US would have to lead international efforts due to its prominence in the world. In order to avoid charges of hypocrisy or racism it would have to take the lead in population reduction efforts.[7] Ehrlich floats the idea of adding "temporary sterilants" to the water supply or staple foods. However, he rejects the idea as unpractical due to "criminal inadequacy of biomedical research in this area."[8] He suggests a tax scheme in which additional children would add to a family's tax burden at increasing rates for more children, as well as luxury taxes on childcare goods. He suggests incentives for men who agree to permanent sterilization before they have two children, as well as a variety of other monetary incentives. He proposes a powerful Department of Population and Environment which "should be set up with the power to take whatever steps are necessary to establish a reasonable population size in the United States and to put an end to the steady deterioration of our environment."[9] The department should support research into population control, such as better contraceptives, mass sterilizing agents, and prenatal sex discernment (because families often continue to have children until a male is born. Ehrlich suggested that if they could choose a male child this would reduce the birthrate). Legislation should be enacted guaranteeing the right to an abortion, and sex education should be expanded.

So you are saying we did not have science in the 70s when the population bomb and exhaustion of resources was all the rage? Both of those 'predicted by science' disasters failed to materialize.

Science it is a tool that must be used correctly to be helpful. If a field starts to demand ideological conformity by regularly ostracizing colleagues that do not parrot the preferred narrative then that field can no longer claim to be using science.

No - i am saying that we now know that human populations appear to naturally limit themselves as wealth increases. The net result is human population is expected to peak this century and start to decline without any special government interventions. However, such a outcome was considered inconceivable in the 70s:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Population_BombThat quote is long but it is useful because it *exactly* mirrors the argument being made by climate change alarmists today.

Now you would like to argue that we learn as we move forward, however, learning requires humility. The arrogance and exaggerated certainty that under pins the climate doom mongers' arguments today suggests that they have learned nothing.

I judge the quality of science of a field based on how it treats its dissenters. A field where dissenters are treated with respect gives me confidence that the majority conclusions are well founded. A field where dissenters are attacked and have their livelihoods threatened tells me that the majority conclusions are not well founded and the majority fears people who would examine them.

Climate science is a field where dissenters are attacked. This means I have zero confidence in any claims made by the majority. If their claims were really that strong they would not need to respond in the way they do.

"Zero confidence in any claims made by the majority" Now there's a cop out if I ever heard one. You are talking about the majority of specifically trained scientists.

And for instance, 800,000 sq. km. of ice missing from the Arctic Ocean is not a claim, it's a fact that can be seen clearly from satellite imagery. Trying to ignore such things is kinda like Nero fiddling while Rome burned.