[Wavytone]

I regard him as an alarmist, and the article is an unstructured rant from someone with no formal scientific credentials in climatology. The article lacks any real logic, draws on hysteria and misplaced fear of things like PRISM.

While some of the material he draws on is factual (such as geological records) there is a fundamental difference: humans didn't exist at the previous extinction events, nor did any other species have both the science to understand what is going on, nor the technological capabilities to intervene in any way. The result was evolution - and the survival of the fittest - or non-survival of the least fit - running its course. We have the ability to fast-track that, both by deliberate selective breeding as well as direct genetic modifications. In addition we are able to assist or interfere in the reproductive cycles of plants, at will.

While I would agree on several points though:
- global warming is happening faster than most want to admit, and will probably exceed the forecast extremes by 2100;
- it cant be undone, as the genie (CO2) is already out of the bottle;
- there are several regions where humanity has already exceeded the population sustainable on rainfall, and the human population has to be drastically reduced by one means or another;
- The most likely outcomes are famine, disease and/or wars fought over resources (primarily water). All will happen (and are happening now on a small scale).

China's one-child policy was effective and in many respects admirable as the only effective peaceful effort to reduce population in a generation. It did show it is possible, though only in a non-democratic state.

He is right in one respect in a very broad sense - America has been quietly taking steps to ensure it will survive long after any other country has fallen into ruin. This thinking started way back in the Cold War period in the 1950s.

But the details he offers are frankly very flawed, hysterical rubbish.