Most of the posts at Climate Feedback have been bog standard political advocacy that blink reality. An exception: Population: elephant in the greenhouse?

A projected 9 billion people will have to share a warming planet by 2050, yet as Kerri Smith writes in Nature Reports Climate Change this week, the climatic effects of their rising numbers and shifting demographics has received surprisingly little study. . .

it’s becoming clear that the problem is more complex than a ticking ‘population bomb’. Numbers are exploding in the world’s poorest societies - a trend that CIA chief Michael V. Hayden recently chose above climate or energy issues as one of the key changes facing the 21st century. . .

And this month's headlines show how far-reaching the links are between slowing population growth and preventing climate-induced crises, Meyerson added in an email:

Each million/billion [people] we add puts more people in the path of natural disasters such as the recent Asian cyclone and drought/starvation, some of which are climate change-induced. Adaptation to those changing conditions (including migration, if needed) is obviously much more manageable with 8 rather 11 billion people. And emissions mitigation - for instance, a move from fossil fuels to biofuels - is also much more problematic if the lion's share of the solar energy budget of the terrestrial surface is needed to meet the food needs of a large population and not available for energy production. (That debate is already ongoing with the spike of food prices and the use of corn for ethanol production, but it will surely increase as we add ~75 million people each year to the population over the next few decades.)

There is no excuse, no justification, for biofuels when you look at the whole suite of issues facing humanity. We need far less primitive ways to generate far more energy. Most of humanity is energy starved now, and as many as one in six is food insecure or literally starving. It's hard to raise healthy minds in healthy bodies, so that the problems can be solved, when you struggle to find and cook a meal, or live in precarious peasant societies that can be devastated by a bad crop.

Climate concerns have been exploited by every nut case advocacy group on the planet to advance their nonsensical agendas which sane people rejected long ago. They think that they can piggy back their crap onto policies putatively addressing climate change. It's pork earmarks for creeps and cranks.

If there is any benefit we might anticipate from what many claim is a high and rising acceptance of climate change as real, it might be that wacko proposals get closer scrutiny since people now think that it matters. Indulging extremists that were more or less supportive of your general agenda is more problematical when you realize that your victory might put them in a position to affect outcomes. The crazy aunt in the attic gets ever more difficult to indulge.