John:
"You need to read more or at least read better documented information than you must have read up to this point if this is your conclusion."

By which you seem to mean, read things that support your case.  I didn't claim to be a scientist; that doesn't mean that I haven't read anything!

John:
"I don't remember Doug endorsing a politics of austerity. Maybe he did 
and I missed it? The consensus I gather from this list when it come to the individuals with an understanding about climate change isn't austerity but rethinking the directions growth is taking and planning on making changes to insure growth is sustainable. As opposed to unplanned and unsustainable growth almost exclusively driven with 
profit taking in mind. Not as glamorous to shoot down as the austerity driven neo-Malthusian thinking climate skeptics like to push as the 
predominant mindset of those who believe. A belief that is pretty 
thinly held on this list."

Again, I presume 'individuals with an understanding of climate change' 
means people who agree with your understanding of climate change.  
You're as reliant as me on what real experts tell you about climate change. I read this literature differently from you. I think your certainty is political - or maybe moral - rather than scientific.

Sorry if challenging a consensus spoils the party. But if you're going 
to oppose current forms of growth, you need to explain how you will 
achieve growth differently while ensuring that more people can enjoy more of the fruits of development, like computers and cars.  If you can't do that, then the effect is austerity whether it's driven by Malthusian thinking or not.  

I'm happy to join your opposition to unplanned growth.  But the planned 
growth that I espouse is planned in the interests of people, who happen to want a lot of the things that last week you were arguing they 
couldn't have. If re-thinking the direction of growth means going backwards, then count me out.

James Greenstein