Most scientists, like most people, take the most risk-averse approach to their work. Contrary to what one reads in the paper, or hears from politicians, scientists are careful not to argue doom or gloom. That's good and bad. Good in that they try to stick to the facts, bad in that they don't explain why the facts might indicate suffering.

What Richard has done, in my view, is remove the risk-adverse approach to the data. He has also shown that politically, there are many reasons to keep the numbers at the low, old, end of the projections.

Richard has never said it isn't possible that some new technology might scrub all the carbon out of the atmosphere or that some unknown feedback loop might remove the bad effects of increased heat.

What I feel you've done is attack Richard as if he's some politicians trying to blame others for this or that. All he's done is research the data and connect the dots to the best of his ability. It's a lot of work, because again, scientists downplay outliers and politically suspect data.

If you want to make an argument about what new technology will be used to prevent the trends Richards points out, or what mechanisms make them inconsequential I'd love to learn about them.

Experts in agriculture have calculate that without artificial fertilizers the Earth can only support 2 billion people. I say that because there's a thread through your argument that the world hasn't changed much or that there's nothing new under the sun. Add to that, human can now nuke the planet to experience something only possible by astroid strikes. Mankind has been around for at least 400,000 years. Think about it, the last 150 years are a blip and we can't assume things will be like they were when the U.S. was founded, say. It's really mind blowing to me!!!

I hope humans will adapt. I am CERTAIN they will. But will we adapt so 8 billion survive in the next 100 years? Richard's data tells me no. Billions will die because there's no technology currently in existence that can allow us to adapt fast enough. Just my opinion! I hope I"m wrong.

Until then, it isn't Richard that has convinced me we're in trouble. It's the data he's gathered and how he's connected it that makes me worried. No one pays him to do this, far as I know.

I have 3 children. Believe me, I hope with all my might that you will be right in that we have nothing to worry about.