Of course, that article labels those scientists whose views weren't in line with the consensus view as evil deniers, even though that in itself is a misrepresentation of the truth. Rather, those scientists dispute the pace and effects of the process.
Is (Holocaust denier) David Irving a genuine historian? Is a 'doctor' who offers copper bracelets for arthritis a real doctor?
Well, Irving is a historian of sorts (after all, Herodotus had no qualifications in the study of history, and wrote some... spurious stuff to say the least, yet he is often regarded as being one of the earliest 'historians'). But I think that comparison is in itself somewhat faulty. The Holocaust is a historical fact, that is easily corroborated via mountains of evidence from eyewitness accounts to written documentation and the damn big death camps left behind by the Nazi regime.Herodotus lacked the modern means of distinguishing myth from reality. David Irving shows an utter disregard for those means. If Herodotus is flawed, Irving is evil. Maybe I could make a different and more relevant case with the promoters of Afrocentrism.
If anyone wants to study a civilization in sub-Saharan Africa -- there is Ethiopia.
On one of the key books in his crusade:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_bomb Ehrlich missed badly in some of his assumptions, one of which was that population growth would go unchecked. Prosperity cuts birth rates, and people can make hedonistic choices (let's get a new car" or "Let's go to Paris" that can overpower the desire for unconstrained procreation. Reason can trump primitive drives.
Rapid population growth would enhance the circumstances that promote global warming. But that is over in all of Europe, all of Asia other than Iran and the Arabian Peninsula, the Americas, and Australia. Vehicle use, one of the biggest contributors to AGW is flat in those places in which vehicle use is saturated, but where it is taking off (Brazil, China, India, and Russia), makes its contributions. Industrial productivity? We are making more out of less.
Humanity can adapt to slow changes far more easily than to rapid, catastrophic change. Venice demonstrates one possible way of dealing with a rising sea level: people slowly build upon the tops of existing buildings as the lower stories sink beneath the waves. But that has nothing to do with global warming as a cause of the rise of the sea level. New York City and London will be like that soon enough. So will Saint Petersburg (either one!)
The big danger of global warming is the inundation of prime farm land, much of it near sea level. I look at the map of food production, and I see a huge part of the world's food production in lowlands of China and India. Maybe global warming will happen slowly enough that climate change will render large parts of Siberia and northern Canada suitable for agriculture. Man has adapted well to gradual climatic change. Abrupt climatic change? Not so well. The Sahara and Arabia used to be verdant places:
...a great time to be a hunter-gatherer (which the whole of Humanity was back then) in the northern third of Africa, which would be impossible since the time of the rise of Egyptian civilization which corresponds to the drying of the Sahara. Egyptian civilization was a magnificent and heroic response to dire necessity. Dessication of the Sahara took about two millennia, and it had nothing to do with global changes of temperature*. The ancient Egyptians established about every core aspect of what we consider civilization, and in a way we in the West depend upon much that the Egyptians learned out of dire necessity.
I have no illusion about the ingrained decency of Humanity as a whole. When and where people can't get away with decency toward others, as in the Third Reich that David Irving says was 'not that bad' or in Stalin's Soviet Union, survival comes at the price of becoming a robot willing to obey any order and sacrifice any friend or family member to the Moloch State just to survive. People are good to each other only to the extent that they can get away with goodness toward each other. I see no easy fix to some of the most ominous projections of global warming. Slower changes? Humanity can adapt with migrations to new frontiers and technological adaptations.
*Precession of the equinoxes, roughly a 26,000 year cycle. The Sahara can apparently have moist times when the Earth is closest and farthest from the sun around the equinoxes. Otherwise the Sun gets high in the sky for too short a time in the summer (now) to allow summer rains to go deep into the Sahara -- or the summer heating just isn't intense enough (as about 13K years ago, during which time the Sahara was about as dry as it is now -- and the current Interglacial time was well underway).
