Just read an article from a Portuguese climate scientist and researcher, that basically predicts for the XXI century in Portugal:
1. Rise of temperature of about 6C in the interior, and of about 4C in the coastal regions.
2. No more Spring.
3. Reduction of rainfall by 30% to 70% (more severe in the South).
4. More numerous, and longer lasting, heat waves. Today, heat waves last about 5 days. In the future, they will be more numerous, and last about 22 days.
This has a profound impact in how people think and manage resources and livelihood. Currently, Portugal has just came out of the driest October ever on record (only 30% of the rainfall amount), plus being 3C above average temperature for the month. 70% of the country is in severe drought, with one large city being supplied with water by auto tanks.
The future is dire, regardless of political sides or discussions:(
There are always record temperatures, record rain fall, record droughts, and so on, within a specific period of time in a specific location.
If you extend the period of time, and/or change the location, the date of the highest record also changes.
When one makes claims of 'the driest October ever on record', without mentioning the period of time in which the records are compared, then alarm bells about the unscientific nature of the 'attempt to create alarm' should be ringing.
Developing new technology to produce clean energy which doesn't emit noxious chemicals and particulate carbon that are known to be harmful to human health, is very sensible. The only criticism I would have is with regard to the efficiency of such a transformation of our energy supplies.
If CO2 is demonized in order to encourage the transition, so be it. If in 30 years time, the scientific opinion about the harmful effect of CO2 on climate, were to change, and, say, the climate began to cool despite the high levels of CO2, then we could claim that no major harm has been done with regard to the problem of toxic emissions. We would not only have a network of clean energy supplies, but we would have the reserves of fossil fuels still in the ground, which could still be used to meet an incrreasing demand for reliable energy, to recharge the hundreds of millions of electric vehicles manufactured cheaply by China, for example.
However, I see a major problem with issues such as flood mitigation, access to water during conditions of drought, and the general protection of citizens from extreme weather events, sea level rises, and the sinking of cities and islands which is often more significant than sea level rise. For example, parts of Bangkok are sinking at a greater rate than the sea is rising.
In order to fix these problems, we need massive amounts of cheap energy, as well as sensible planning. Those who are promoting the transition to alternative energy supplies, such as Al Gore, often mention the benefits of new jobs that are created, which is good for the economy. That's fine, but those new jobs are not addressing the problems of the vulnerability of many cities around the world to the 'natural' extreme weather events that are a part of the historical record.
I see a conflict of interest here. The more expensive energy from 'C02-clean' power, makes it more difficult to tackle the expensive projects that are required to protect societies from extreme weather events, such as building flood-mitigation dams, re-organizing urban run-off, elevating homes above previous flood levels, strengthening houses to resist hurricanes in areas subject to hurricanes, and building levees where appropriate, and so on.
Also, the association in the media, of extreme weather events with increasing CO2 levels, tends to create the false impression in the mind of the general public that reducing atmospheric emissions of CO2 will protect them from the continuation of such extreme weather events. It won't.