Like your example of peptic ulcers,you try to project the logic saying that because something new was found to be the cause, there will also be something new to negate AGW. Poor logic. Likewise because mankind was able to greatly improve the food yield previously, we will always be able to do so. Perhaps. Not necessarily the reality. Remember the "green revolution" depended heavily upon fossil organic materials. We are finding that this may not be sustainable forever.<quoted text>
Just another person who has no faith in science and technology and predicts doom and gloom. Grantham seems to think that no one is researching how to improve crop yields or that no one is researching alternative energies sources. That's nothing new. Here is a little of what was said in the 1960s-1970s:
Paul Ehrlich’s The Population Bomb foretold billions of deaths from starvation, and the collapse of civilisation:“the battle to feed humanity is over”, Ehrlich said.
But yet without a Manhattan project level of commitment, along came the Green Revolution, led by Norman Borlaug, who won the battle that Ehrlich said was lost. Using techniques borrowed from Gregor Mendel, the father of genetics, he bred a new form of wheat. Its shorter stems broke less easily and wasted less energy in growth; it was disease-resistant and yielded more food. Suddenly, the amount of food available from a hectare of land rocketed. Borlaug’s innovation is credited with saving a billion lives – and the nation of India. No wonder he won a Nobel Peace Prize for his work.
Over population is becoming problematic. We may not be able to sustain it much longer. Resources are diminishing and pollution is mounting. We need to understand that.