Thanks for the reply. Here's my objections:

The last warm period, the Medieval warm period... I don't understand why your comment directed at young Earth creationist.

I was referring to the one before that: The "Eemian", which was warmer than it is today. It began 130,000 years ago and lasted for about 15,000 years. Strangely, polar bears evolved about 150,000 ago. This suggests they don't have much of a problem surviving warm periods, but simply interbreed with brown bears until the climate cooling splits the two species again depending on their location. My feeling is that this would happen again and then reverse as before as soon as the temperatures go down again.

The problem is that it's an unnaturally warm period with temperatures rising at alarming rates never before seen. If it were similar to the medieval warm period it wouldn't be as big of a problem.

Well, so far the temperatures are still far below the medieval ones. We will have reached that point again, when they can grow grapevines in Greenland again. That should take another couple of decades, which is enough time not to panic, but to steadily develop solutions in case they are necessary.

That's not true. Solar energy has been making leaps and bounds since governments and businesses started pumping money into its R&D due to the Paris Agreement. It went from a stagnant technology to have a breakthrough almost every single day.

Sounds a bit too much like propaganda...

It's constantly getting more efficient and much cheaper.

I'm with you on this one. The question is whether it makes sense to push half-finished products into the market or if it might be better to do more R&D and wait another 5-10 years with the rollout instead of spending too much on marketing and lobbying to sell a mass-produced prototype.

Almost 90% of the power generated in Europe in 2016 came from renewable resources (factoring in Solar and Wind power)

• What is the share of renewables without subsidies?
• What is the share of delivery on demand by renewables?

My hunch: Both are rather small in ratio to the money that has been pumped into it.

Yes, reducing the Earth's population would solve Global Warming... would be naive at best, despotic at worst.

I agree with the second half of the sentence. The first half.. not really. Personally, I would call it naive to spend one trillion $ to built masses of solar panels and windmills and expect them to positively influence the climate, while the 3rd world builds coal plants every day because of the exploding population. Besides, even if the likelihood of a failure of the current approach is just at ten percent, then you end up with expected social costs of 100 Billion $ plus the costs of a further non-stop warming of the climate. Not a good deal.

Stifling the population growth on the other hand isn't that expensive and it doesn't have to be despotic if you work with incentives instead of force. Also, the chances of success are very high, since the technique has already proven to be successful.

Hence why the focus should be on finding alternative energy sources that could replace the old ways for everyone, rather than on commodified items like the Tesla.

That is an argument against marketing unfinished products and instead to reallocate the money into R&D. Why isn't that being done? Why do they still put up solar panels on the roofs in cloudy Germany, but not in Ghana where there are optimal conditions throughout the year?

Bottom line: Too much ideology and too many particular interests, but too little business thinking. If you have that, expect it to fail.. and in this case: Buy a boat :-)