With regard to (a) the majority scientific consensus, as Jonathan pointed out, is that climate change is down to increasing greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, and that reduction in the use of fossil fuels, and changes in industrial and agricultural processes that produce them is the way to mitigate it. That may have to be augmented by carbon capture technology to reduce the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.As to your point (b), there is the Milankovitch cycle of around 100,000 years which I mentioned in a previous posting (is it worth me posting responses if you don't read them? Still. at least I could correct the error!), as follows:《Yes, the world's climate does go in cycles as the solar system's complex gravitational interactions move us closer then further from the Sun and the angle of its axis, etc changes. I'm sure as you're responding to this thread you're fully aware of Milankovitch cycles:http://www.climatedata.info/forcing/milankovitch-cycles/https://science.nasa.gov/science-research/earth-science/milankovitch-orbital-cycles-and-their-role-in-earths-climate/Figure 3 of this is interesting if you look at the way CO2 is now rising:https://royalsociety.org/news-resources/projects/climate-change-evidence-causes/question-6/So, yes, there is a cyclical change in climate over a long period but if you look at current greenhouse gas emissions they appear to follow no previously known pattern and coincidentally begin on 1750 when the industrial revolution began - I don't think there's any evidence of a previous industrial revolution injecting these gases into the atmosphere? If anyone has it perhaps publish it? It's really worth looking at the graphs in this link to see the increases in greenhouse gases since 1750:https://www.epa.gov/climatechange-science/causes-climate-changeYes, the world will survive but perhaps the human race has run it's course and is due for extinction.》There are other blips from time to time, for example, from 1645 to 1715 when sunspot activity subsided and there was a mini ice age (known as the Maunder Minimum) but recent solar activity has kept fairly close to the norm of its 22 year cycle with a peak and minimum of solar activity every 11 years:https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maunder_MinimumHence scientists have linked warming to the rise in CO2 and other greenhouse gases in the absence of any other obvious contributing factors. With regard to the Zedong quote, I'm not sure how one compares a complete uncertainty of the future following a revolution with one drawing on predictions from many scientific measurements by multiple organisations to model temperature changes in the future. Models do have errors but I seem to recall from one lecture I attended or article I read that some of the models were more optimistic than the actual average temperatures that have been measured. (It's a bit like comparing motor accident statistics from actual occurrences and seriousness compiled over 100 years or so with guestimates of the likelihood and impact of ransomware hacks.)With regard to (c) it doesn't keep me awake at night, I doubt I'll still be around when it gets really uncomfortable! But I tend not to worry about things I have no direct control over - whether it's climate change or nuclear war. If the human race becomes extinct it's all just part of the revolutionary cycle ... I can't speak for others. I didn't quite understand what you were getting at with the piece quoted from the IC report, perhaps I need to see the complete report; do you have the reference?
Michael Ixer ● 59d