How will we meet power needs of the future without fossil f

Assuming Earth ambient temperature was absolute zero, but you know what, it isn't. its 15c. The areas I'm describing its 24c so a rise to 28c is....
Well I'll let your fantastic mathematical brain work it out for me. 

You've misunderstood what bodies like, for example, the IPCC are. I wouldn't even call the IPCC "a scientific institution" - and it's not a world leading anything. The clue is in the word "Intergovernmental". It was set up as a body to give advice to governments on climate. This is not a "scientific" organisation that employs scientists to do research into climate with the object of understanding what's going on - which would involve investigating all different (and often incompatible) theories. That would be of little use to governments. The IPCC recognises this and has tried to build a model based on various selected theories. And their model is based on the hypothesis that the main driver of warming is CO2. It also leaves out a lot of important factors because they're not yet understood. 

This is not a scientific body - although it employs scientists in many disciplines to inform their models. But these scientists are all working to the same script and their work is not peer reviewed. Anyone who doesn't believe their basic hypotheses is not employed. 

I don't think you've ever understood this, although it has been mentioned in many of the links that you've been given - but not read. And the recent example of the danger of politicians being guided by selected scientists during the pandemic should be a timely warning about how dangerous it can be. The lockdowns that have done so much damage to this country (and many others) came out of a model designed by Neil Ferguson - a model that has always got its predictions completely wrong. Yet politicians are still stupid enough the believe what they call "the science". There is NO such thing.  
 

I'm hoping to educate you, nicely.
What grade maths qualifications do you have? No worries, I will help you.

In your world a temperature increase from 24C to 28C is a 25% rise, even though 4 is about 16% of 24.

Now, 24C happens to be about 75 degrees F. 28C is 82 degrees F - So in degrees F an increase from 75F to 82F is 7/75 = 9.3%

But in degrees K 24C = 297K and 28C is 301K so a rise is 4/297 or 1.3% rise.

If you can get this you might understand why saying temperatures have gone up 25% is 100% wrong.

Point to a scientific institute that actually says 'we have found'. They usually refer to the IPCC reports when commenting on AGW. Being at odds with teh IPCC narrative does mean one is not invited onto IPCC panels and that one's funding is at risk. It is a bad career move to disagree with the narrative which is why most of the 'dissidents' are retired or unattached. It is a neat way to claim and keep a consensus.

Worth a listen.



wattsupwiththat.com/2023/03/23/climate-change-isnt-particularly-dangerous-richard-lindzen/

Of course wattsup is not a scientific institute but the interview with Richard Lindzen, a climatologist and involved in the first IPCC which the link provides for you, is much more than 'a blogger' and has belonged, and still does belong, to a scientific institute.
If science is about evidence why ignore those who draw different conclusions from that very same evidence and more importantly why select only scientists that agree with a specific position if one is out to provide evidence of fact. It makes no sense in scientific terms, it only makes sense in conspiracy theory terms.

Hang on you, and many others, are demanding we almost self immolate to save the planet and you want us to take that on board with pretty sketchy evidence and the reports of an organisation that clearly ignores 'the science' that does not agree with it and claims a consensus. I can have a consensus on anything I like if I hand pick the people I want, tell everyone else the others are charlatans and only release the information that agrees with me. In a previous life we called that Sovietisation whereby contrary views were unhelpfu and dangerous to 'the truth'.

Which of the many 'anticipations' we have had over the last three decades have worked out as anticipated? Moving to renewable energy is not a problem unless it results in energy shortages, which it has, so is a problem in terms of continuity and in terms of cost. The 'few dozen scientists' use the figures as used by the IPCC to illustrate their agenda. It is hardly the fault of these 'few' that the IPCC figures can be shown to be at best suspect at worst falsified.