[mrosett]

Neo-malthusian arguments have been recycled by the same group of intellectuals for the last 50 years or so. You'd be hard pressed to point to a single prediction they've made that turned out to be correct. If there's a single fatal flaw, it's that they discount how much people will change their behavior in response to a change in circumstances. Unchecked global warming may spell doom for civilization as it currently exists... but adaptations will be made. Food will be grown in places that are currently too cold for it. Sea walls will be built. Air conditioners will be purchased.

If "top climate scientists" want to argue that preventing climate change is better than adapting to it, then that's something I'd engage with. But this? Absolute drivel.