Doctors say that you can stop global warming by not having kids!

Thanks. I do think that the science needs to be looked at more closely, as does the media reaction to the whole issue. But that could take up an entire thread on its own (and probably already has).

I'm going to abide by your signature and assume that you're taking the piss

Or maybe, the link between human intervention and climate change hasn't been proved (in fact, recent cooling suggests that the link is at best tenuous), ergo the number of children you have will have a minimal impact on the climate in terms of carbon/temperature.

Why does global warming have to top the agenda for everything? There are numerous media complaints about falling birthrates in the UK, yet in the context of global warming, that's a 'good thing'. It's the same scenario with developing economies - people state that they want to end poverty, but this poverty is occurring in the very nations whose economies and industrial development are stunted by caps on carbon emissions.

I could go on... but this has already turned into a rant I just detest the unthinking acceptance of "man-made climate change", and the political/media machinations that place it higher on the agenda than issues that really need our attention.

*awaits the Climate Inquisition to tie me to a stake and begin kindling the righteous fires for the heretic*

You can't deny that it'll help though. Less people use less power.

If climate change is really caused by humans though - and current thinking seems to be that it is - then of course it should be high on the agenda, and it needs to be seen to, because of the effects it causes, i.e being drowned by rising sea-levels, or everything getting cooked to death.

Of course fewer people consume less energy, but the question is, does the consumption of (carbon-generated) energy contribute to the apocalyptic predictions of global warming, as we are constantly informed that it does? I, and others, think not.

Naturally it makes sense to conserve energy from an economic perspective - I don't believe in egregious levels of wastage (or pollution, for that matter). I merely question the "human-induced" consensus on climate change, and its attendant political circus. The fact remains that fossil fuels currently remain the cheapest and most efficient method of acquiring energy (unless there is a greater willingness to switch to nuclear power), and it would be economic suicide to try and rely on 'sustainable' energy for the most part, at this time.

Well, firstly: it isn't. Climate change is now and always has been, a natural process. Which is why we have gone through ice ages and other periods of climate craziness.

Secondly, the support for global warming in the media is often based solely on research which corroborates the notion, while there is also lots (I would indeed say more) data that shows that it's either not happening or nowhere near as catastrophic as people say.

If climate change is really caused by humans though - and current thinking seems to be that it is - then of course it should be high on the agenda, and it needs to be seen to, because of the effects it causes, i.e being drowned by rising sea-levels, or everything getting cooked to death.

Lol and the government keeps bringing over hundreds of thousadns of immigrants a year... Tell the Africans to stop having children, that is where the population problem is.

1) Every summer, a large of the Antarctic ice shelf melts into the sea, and then freezes again during the winter. That's a hell of a lot of water. Do sea levels rise to the point of swamping land masses as a result? No.

2) The proof that climate change is caused by humans in incredibly tenuous. The IPCC (inter-governmental panel on climate change) has been repeatedly shown up as a biased organisation with a political agenda, quashing the evidence of climate scientists who disagree with the supposed consensus on human-induced global warming. Now that measurements have indicated a period of cooling over the last decade, the IPCC are furiously backtracking, calling this an 'anomaly' and insisting that it will get hotter soon, yes really. Same thing as regards the disproven 'hockey stick graph', etc.

3) Think about the vested interests in perpetuating the idea of global warming. Scientists in the relevant field seem to be obliged to incorporate global warming into their research proposals if they are to stand any hope of getting funding. Politicians have invested their time in it because it represents a tangible cause in which they can engage, and which proves popular with certain sectors of voters and the media. And certain elements of the media invest in the idea because it assuages a kind of liberal middle-class guilt about the way people live their lives, and because it provides a perfect platform from which to campaign for issues such as poverty alleviation (despite the fact that environmental measures tend to adversely affect developing economies, as I've mentioned).

4) Finally (at last!) - how do you think global temperatures rose before widespread carbon emissions? If carbon emissions, from extensive industrialisation and urbanisation, cause global warming, then how do you explain well-documented pre-industrial periods of high temperature such as that around the 14th century, known as the Medieval Warm Period? Unless it was caused by the methane from the all the cows pastured by the village peasants?

Ok I'm done for now, my fingers hurt

Of course I know that there have been climate changes not related to human activity. That doesn't necessarily mean that human activity is incapable of having effects on the climate, though.
Also, I would simply love to see this data. Any links?

Oh, Polar ice at record high
NASA data out of line
Global Warming not occurred over last 11 years
31,000 scientists deny man causes global warming
Cows a greater cause of global warming than man
Flawed Data/Lack of debate

That should help with both of your points.

What do you guys think?

Thank you for your educated and informed perspective on this important debate.

It is a stupid and pointless debate. There is no population problem in the whole of Europe, or America, or for that matter any first world country. It is only the third world and second that need to stop having children. If anything we need to be having more.