TNT: As someone who studied some of this back in university in the early 90s, let me provide some feedback. And let me preamble it by saying I am not a climate scientist; I am an engineer. However, as part of a power systems course I took in third year engineering, I did a semester long project on climate change using data from the University of East Anglia and my own research. The climate is of course changing. There is no doubt about that. The planet is in a warming trend that started in the last ice age (approximately 10,000 years ago) and is persisting to today. None of that is in dispute. Now of course, the real question is: are humans having an effect? The answer is yes. How much of an effect is the question mark. But here is the facet of the argument that nobody mentions much, but is actually at the core of human impact: the primary reasons for human impact is not just the burning of fossil fuels as a result of the industrial revolution, but it is also strongly attributed to the boom in human population in the past 200 years. If you look at any chart of human population growth, you can easily see the correlation between the number of humans on the planet and the carbon increases in the same timeframe. 200 years ago, the population of the earth was just under one billion. Now, it is seven billion. Our population went up by a factor of seven in just two hundred years. Prior to that, you can see the trend was very gradual. Now why did that occur? Simple. Technology. We developed technology to make it easier for us to survive, such as coal fired furnaces, machinery to perform labor and modern medicine. The end result is that family sizes went up substantially. In the past, when a couple had five or six children, there was a high probability that at least half of them would not survive. Now, child mortality is very low. As is mortality due to childbirth for women. Now how does this factor into the discussion on climate change? First off, present generations need to stop catastrophizing and chastising previous generations. There wasn't any malicious intent on anyone's part. I would think that most people seeing child mortality being low and better medicine and technology would be good things. And unless someone wants to channel Thanos, the size of our population is not likely to decrease anytime soon. So where does this leave us? Well, now I can put on my engineering hat and provide feedback. We have several technologies at our disposal to mitigate our carbon footprints. Those being renewables (solar, wind, geothermal, hydro-electric), cleaner fossil fuel burning, and nuclear. Based on the research I performed at the time in my report, the solution was emphatically clear: go nuclear. The energy density of nuclear power is so far above any of the other technologies at our disposal, that we could make a massive dent in our carbon footprint in a very sort span of time. Consider how much of a difference it would make if half of the USA for example drove electric cars and most of those electric cars received their power from nuclear power plants. Along with the vast majority of houses receiving nuclear power. And incidentally, any engineer worth their salt is fully aware of this. So why is this not occurring? Well, to put it simply: activism. Many individuals who have huge concerns for climate change simultaneously have a visceral dislike of nuclear power. Despite its obvious benefits. So they tout solar and wind as the primary options. However, these simply do not yield the necessary power to meet our needs. And additionally, they are variable; i.e. if the wind isn't blowing and the sun isn't shining, the power levels drop dramatically. In the end, here is my two cents: both sides of the argument need to stop using children to further their points. That is just a tactic to garner sympathy by exploiting a child. And it needs to stop. Furthermore, activists need to listen to the scientists. And I mean ALL the scientists. Not just the ones discussing the climate, but the ones who understand the real solutions. And finally, it would help GREATLY if celebrities would listen to Ricky Gervais and please just shut the hell up. Nothing is more annoying than to listen to some sanctimonious, vacuous airhead try to get in the limelight by jumping on the bandwagon without any concrete knowledge of the subject. Our species is remarkably adaptable and has many bright minds at its disposal. We need to leverage those minds, give them the tools they need to produce viable solutions and stay out of their way.