The post to which you refer was far too long for me and I barely skimmed it.
But I think your comment in relation to it goes too far and you should apologise.

Err nope. Climate change is not the biggest threat to humanity.

Over population and population rise is the biggest threat by a country mile.

Pollution, resource degradation and emission are just a consequence.

While the world focusses on microscopic changes in CO2 it ignores a much more important change. That the oxygen content of the atmosphere is reducing. That oxygen that we need to be alive. Only a small drop, but a drop nonetheless. And that is happening because we are chopping down the rain forests which produce oxygen.

And that is happening due to population rise and consumption of everything from palm oil to teak garden furniture.

And no one is even talking about oxygen....

https://www.oxygenlevels.org/

Because the rate of rise of population is unsustainable. I don't mean over a few decades I mean over the next 200 years.

Unused land is of little use if it's tundra or ice sheets or desert sands or snow covered pine forest.

What undeveloped useable land is available is small, without chopping down the remaining rain forest that produces our oxygen.

200,000 extra new consumers every day cannot go on indefinitely.

People have been saying that for hundreds of years.

We cannot forsee what ingenuity will arise in future and help to realise vast new resources and ways to inhabit and cultivate more regions of the earth, and beyond.

A person of 200 years ago would find our world and achievements completely incomprehensible - images and moving film that can flow through the air, contraptions that carry a thousand people into the clouds and cross the globe in hours, buildings that soar into the sky, apparently limitless food and luxury.

There is every chance that progress carries on apace, if allowed to as it previously was. You and I will find the future, 200 years hence, incomprehensible.

In any case, it is in our nature as living organisms to keep surviving and pushing on regardless, or it is in the nature of the winners to do so. What is the alternative, to die out through choice? Those who have balls, strength and ambition will win. We in the West can be as pessimistic and negative as we like, the other countries and tribes will carry on, as China and India are doing, and the winners will call the shots.

It goes to show how pathetic this declining civilization has become that the dominant message is one of hopelessness and despair. Inventing intellectual detritus that dresses up weakness and cowardice as virtue. Chris Packham describes his thoughts as "a great, hopeless vacuum." An ideal spokesman for the climate tripe and a true representative of the state we're in. Thankfully, the universe doesn't reward such misery.

I prefer to be positive and play the game. The alternative is a depressive losing approach.

May the best and strongest win, and three cheers to those who do!

The UK only accounts for 1 % of global CO2 emissions , so even if we give in to the climate loonies and go back to living in the stone age , it won`t make any difference to the fate of the planet .