climate change / unpredictable weather/wind

[Matteo V]

You would not be here if it were not for cyanobacteria oxygenating the earths atmosphere, resulting in the extinction of most other life on the planet, and making the planet inhospitable to almost all other life at that time. So yes, every single mass extinction has resulted in the diversity of life which now includes humans.

Even the most devastating climate catastrophes, which are cooling events NOT warming events, paved the way for the huge diversity of life which still makes up only 0.1% of all species that have ever existed. That's right, 99.9% of all species have gone extinct, and made room for another new 0.1% to flourish. And this cycle will continue again and again because the climate shifts naturally. Humanity should be most worried about surviving a cooling cycle, not a warming one.

So you support self-inflicted extinction of the human race? Is that what you are attempting to argue?

Cathy Newman kitesurfs!? Seriously though, why do you do this? The leap is so proposturous that any claims it was a genuine question just makes you appear really unintelligent.

Even Cathy Newman can be right on accident.

So yes I do support the self Extinction of humanity via the insanity that exist on the left, specifically the Church of AGW. All of these efforts, all of these heartfelt emotions, are going into something, and some narrative that defines "human destruction" as "warming the climate". This is exactly the opposite of the reality, as cooling is proven to be vastly more destructive then any warming event, natural or anthropogenic. Unfortunately, it is a narrative ingrained in the psyche of the easily swayed, and those who refuse to think for themselves, to the point that it is relatively futile to fight against.

Slide, and many many more like him, are very much willing to make this case, with utter disregard for the blatant reality in front of them, for me.

[SimonP]

Whether or not cooling is "better" is irrelevant as global temperatures will continue to rise until net greenhouse gas emissions reach zero. Even then, temperatures will continue to rise until a new equilibrium is reached. The scientific consensus is that anything over +2°C of warming above the pre-industrial age is dangerous. We are currently above +1°C with the full effect of the current CO2 concentration yet to be felt.

There is no left versus right, just scientific fact.

[palmbeacher]

So you support self-inflicted extinction of the human race? Is that what you are attempting to argue?

Cathy Newman kitesurfs!? Seriously though, why do you do this? The leap is so proposturous that any claims it was a genuine question just makes you appear really unintelligent.

Even Cathy Newman can be right on accident.

So yes I do support the self Extinction of humanity via the insanity that exist on the left, specifically the Church of AGW. All of these efforts, all of these heartfelt emotions, are going into something, and some narrative that defines "human destruction" as "warming the climate". This is exactly the opposite of the reality, as cooling is proven to be vastly more destructive then any warming event, natural or anthropogenic. Unfortunately, it is a narrative ingrained in the psyche of the easily swayed, and those who refuse to think for themselves, to the point that it is relatively futile to fight against.

Slide, and many many more like him, are very much willing to make this case, with utter disregard for the blatant reality in front of them, for me.

No emotions, just simply trying to understand your confused rationale, which is a complete fantasy. Living in lala land must be very comfortable, say hi to Donald!

[Matteo V]

No emotions, just simply trying to understand your confused rationale, which is a complete fantasy. Living in lala land must be very comfortable, say hi to Donald!

I think you're Trump comment betrays the emotionality behind your personal position. Further, mentioning that my position "is a complete fantasy", where credibility has already been established in the questioning of the narrative which you hold as the unquestionable truth, also shows that you have an emotional attachment to your position that would override reason. But overall, you seem to exhibit something that is very damaging to the left position. And that is a willingness to discount any deserved skepticism on your position.

But I would say that I do share some of your emotion and passion on this issue. It truly pains me to see those with a drive and care for the environment, be steered along the same path that has led to environmental destruction in the name of good, in the past.

[jumptheshark]

Haha.

Questioning a narrative does not establish any kind of credibility whatsoever.

If the narrative is correct, and evidenced all around you, it makes you a fool.

[Matteo V]

Haha.

Questioning a narrative does not establish any kind of credibility whatsoever.

If the narrative is correct, and evidenced all around you, it makes you a fool.

Your first statement is correct. However the second statement assumes that the narrative is unquestionable. There is evidence on both sides, and neither side can claim unquestionedability to their narrative. The fools are the ones who will not accept reasonable and rational skepticism, backed by evidence or shortcomings of that narrative, to which they have no counter point to. Hence the comparison of the AGW narrative to religion.

[Matteo V]

Whether or not cooling is "better" is irrelevant as global temperatures will continue to rise until net greenhouse gas emissions reach zero. Even then, temperatures will continue to rise until a new equilibrium is reached.

The above is the belief that climate stability is possible. However climate stability, is extremely unlikely. The climate shifts naturally in both warming and cooling cycles. These warming and cooling Cycles include many factors such as Earth's orbit, and the byproducts of the life that exists on Earth. Many more factors are actually complete unknowns or just being examined for the first time now. Any climate stability induced by all of these factors lining up perfectly, is a complete fluke and statistically nearly impossible.

This erroneous belief in climate stability, is central to the psyche of AGW believers. While there are other mechanisms with which two push the AGW propaganda, the loss of this part of the narrative, loses many believers who have some capability of rational thoughts.

The scientific consensus is that anything over +2°C of warming above the pre-industrial age is dangerous.

The use of the idea of "scientific consensus", exposes the lack of scientific certainty in this issue. While no scientific consensus is needed for basic physics, and even the theory of relativity is testable and has virtually no questions one way or the other, for climate you have to have opinions in order to choose a direction.

Another way to put it, is that when the evidence, understanding of that evidence, and even the modeling, fall short of any real understanding of the mechanism in question, politics it's used as a way to decide wether to lean one way or the other. This has happened in science many times before, and will happen many times again. Because of this history, "scientific consensus" can certainly be questioned when it is referred to as fact and certainty.

We are currently above +1°C with the full effect of the current CO2 concentration yet to be felt.

There is no left versus right, just scientific fact.

This is an excellent example of propagandizing uncertainty, while at the same time asserting it's certainty. It also states that the assumed effect, to which all models have failed to accurately predict, will just happen in the future at some time unknown. Why the probability of an effect happening sometime in the future has its own probability of being true, failure to make an accurate prediction demonstrates the lack of understanding required to call it scientific fact.

And of course, possibly in a Freudian slip, SimpnP must state that it is scientific fact in order to cover up the obvious logical loopholes created when the previous statement exposed itself as an unknown.

[SimonP]

You're talking about Milankovitch cycles which act slowly over long time frames.

The observed warming of +1°C over the past 100 years is due to the addition of CO2 into the atmosphere. This is scientific fact and disputed only in the more wacko parts of the internet. You are arguing doubt and uncertainty where none actually exists.

[tegirinenashi]

The observed warming of +1°C over the past 100 years is due to the addition of CO2 into the atmosphere.

And the world is gonna end -- like in t̶w̶e̶l̶v̶e̶ ten years -- from that cause?

Let me rephrase that a little. So, one degree temperature increase hazard is the reason why now every politician inserts "climate change" whenever natural disaster strikes? "Now we have more severe heat waves due to climate change", yeah, right. And then, they perform power shutdown because their beloved renewables fail to deliver?

I'm getting voter pamphlets where some candidates are not ashamed to proclaim that they support Green New Deal. I'm also interested to know candidates position on Critical Race Theory; unfortunately this info is not there in the brochure.

[Matteo V]

You're talking about Milankovitch cycles which act slowly over long time frames.

Milankovitch cycles are not the only cycle that warms and cools the earth, though it is the most severe as a stand alone regular cycle. There are other, much less understood cycles, that have warmed/cooled the earth in the past. On top of that, there are stand alone events which have only "possible" explanations.

The observed warming of +1°C over the past 100 years is due to the addition of CO2 into the atmosphere. This is scientific fact and disputed only in the more wacko parts of the internet. You are arguing doubt and uncertainty where none actually exists.

This is also untrue. The ammount of natural warming not due to CO2 in the past 100 years could be 0 to 100%. The earth was, and still is being influenced by factors other than man made CO2. THE CLIMATE IS NOT NATURALLY STABLE!!! You, and many other members of the Church of AGW, seem to consistently refer to there being a stable/unchanging climate on Earth. If you accept that natural climate change is happening today as it has happened for the last thousand to billions of years, then uncertainty cannot be eliminated.