Wow what a negative out look. Are you basing this on climate models?

What's wrong with doubts? Is everyone simply supposed to believe 100% what the fear mongering left are brow beating you into believing? That is such a monolithic way of thinking and will kill individualism.

You are acting as if no one had doubt before Trump. The president has nothing to do with the doubts I have. My doubts stem from a NASA scientist admitting to fudging his work to make is fit what Obama wanted. That and the incompletion of climate models. Modern computers don't even have the ability to replicate data types that can even begin to model our atmosphere. They get as close as they can on somethings, and ignore others. Creating a compltely inacurate representation of our climate over time. Which is why every prediction for 50 years has been wrong.

sources?

That' Josh Fox right? The guy that couldn't remeber if his $100,000 offer for his gas rights came in 2006 or 2008, or wait to not him and maybe but not certianly to a different reporter he heard about second hand and decided to lie and make a movie about? He made that film independantly right? Oh wait no wasn't it produced by the Park Foundation? An openly partisan group with a clear anti-fracking agenda? You know the foundation ran by Park's kids who worked for Duncan Hines and now P&G, a company actively converting all of its vehicles too natural gas... Seems like a big smokescreen to me.

So is the issue fracking or faulty equipment? It's sounds to me like we just need to invest more into making fracking more secure.

So your arguement is that those scientists can't be biased because the person they disagree with is cutting their funding? That makes for totally fair findings. Any government funded research is skewed.

And when you say "most of them... won't be around enough to realise or care anyway" I take away 2 things. First isn't it convinient that all of these predictions are centuries in the future. Second, on the same note, let's say you are wrong and those you listen too are wrong. They too will be dead before they can take any blame, yet meanwhile they have whipped everyone into a panic for their own gain while they are still alive, again convinient.

https://cei.org/blog/wrong-again-50-years-failed-eco-pocalyptic-predictions

So I asked what you were basing your claims on and your response was, in part, just more claims...

I would hate to be you man.

Why? You come across as a bit paranoid.

Did you ever take steps to try and fix things? (Complaining on the internet doesn't count)

Jill Stein... we probably should stop there.

Ah, that's the solution huh? You can't do x because it is bad, BUT if you give the government money it's ok. That's mafia style extortion. I don't get your fears. If you are afraid that overpopulation will lead to a decrease in population then it seems to me the planet has a way of working these things out.

No I just think euthenasia of young children or forced abortions is still killing of people. The difference between letting the planet run its course and a nuclear war is that one results in a drastic amount of radiation.

I see that as a better option, but I also see it leading to other problems. What happens when someone changes their mind, or a group of people feel taken advantage of and organize. It could lead to massive social unrest. Maybe a better trade of, but there is something dehumanizing about steralization. I also see it being something that the weakest of society takes advantage of and could turn... racist? Or at least be painted as such.

Well when you talk about the population decreasing by billions as a bad thing, it certainly doesn't make it seem as if you have an issue with it.

Can't wait to get home and respond to all of this.