climate change / unpredictable weather/wind

[prop_joe]

But please go on to believe this isn’t an issue and we should continue to emit carbon emissions for no reason other than the wealth of 0.001% of the human population.

and the truth reveals itself I don't think you're alone tho... i think many climate activists are more interested in bringing down rich folk than saving the planet. Side note... you moan about the 0.001% but what about the ones below your band, do you not think the people in the band below you are pissed at you and your way of life? Also, in one thing you mention it's the 1% c02 increase thats making the profit for the 0.001%, you said yourself us kiters are in the 1% so your essentially complaining about yourself...?

[Matteo V]

.....Species can adapt, just not in situations where the change is too rapid (remember dinosaurs?).

Anyway, please keep believing all the scientists are wrong. Your children and future generations will be very proud of you.

The simplification of the concept in bold, is what makes it wrong. Catastrophic changes drive evolution in one direction, slow changes drive evolution in another direction. Both have been extremely important in Earth's history. And the result of both is the reason why the species that are here, ARE HERE, in this tiny moment in the Earth's history and future.

Quick and catastrophic changes eliminate some species with lower populations and open up niches in ecosystems for other species to evolve and fill. They also change the direction of larger population species by selecting for previously useless genetic mutations.

Slow changes over time can actually have an even more devastating effect on species. The evolution of many species where environmental factors have driven increasing size, ultimately turned out to be the end of that species. Most large animals who once walked the face of this Earth have no direct descendants, as only their smaller closest relatives were able to survive and pass on their genetic lineages.

Your statement is emotional, not rational, and certainly not based in science.

[slide]

well we do need to get emoitional and we do need to act now, not more words- even china now admit we have a very serious problem - but trump will never admit we have climate problems - the sooner he goes the better

[Matteo V]

well we do need to get emoitional and we do need to act now, not more words- even china now admit we have a very serious problem - but trump will never admit we have climate problems - the sooner he goes the better

Yes! A new field of science! Emotional science! Logic and reason have failed us for far too long. We need to rekindle the era of emotional/religious based understanding of our world, and action in society, to try to steer our world in the direction that our great leaders will feel is best for us.

Please note that the above is sarcasm.
Below is honest and sincere.

But regardless of what you think of trump, do you really think Xi Jinping is a better alternative? I really don't think you're trading up with that one. And pretty much any environmental action you see out of a dictatorial regime, is going to be because that environmental action is either beneficial to that regime or hurts its enemies.

[SimonP]

Mass extinction events are not a good thing. In the past five or so past events, it has taken tens of millions of years for biodiversity to return. Unlike past events, the cause is a single dominant species (us), not giant asteroids or runaway greenhouse gas warming. There are many unintended consequences to reducing biodiversity and extinction cascade because of species interdependency.

[Matteo V]

Mass extinction events are not a good thing. In the past five or so past events, it has taken tens of millions of years for biodiversity to return. Unlike past events, the cause is a single dominant species (us), not giant asteroids or runaway greenhouse gas warming. There are many unintended consequences to reducing biodiversity and extinction cascade because of species interdependency.

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.

[slide]

if only our mother earth was cooling -where is your proof , cause you are the only one who believes this ,and why do you believe this - i'm all ears

[palmbeacher]

Mass extinction events are not a good thing. In the past five or so past events, it has taken tens of millions of years for biodiversity to return. Unlike past events, the cause is a single dominant species (us), not giant asteroids or runaway greenhouse gas warming. There are many unintended consequences to reducing biodiversity and extinction cascade because of species interdependency.

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?

[prop_joe]

Mass extinction events are not a good thing. In the past five or so past events, it has taken tens of millions of years for biodiversity to return. Unlike past events, the cause is a single dominant species (us), not giant asteroids or runaway greenhouse gas warming. There are many unintended consequences to reducing biodiversity and extinction cascade because of species interdependency.

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.

[Matteo V]

if only our mother earth was cooling -where is your proof , cause you are the only one who believes this ,and why do you believe this - i'm all ears

No, even your climate change enthusiasts are well aware that in a cooling cycle, especially with the excess number of humans on the face of this Earth, environmental destruction will be extremely disproportionate if humans exist at those High population levels. Food will be scarce, and again that is not debated by scientists who understand what cooling Cycles mean to the production of food.

Ask them. There is no "AGW Church" believer that actually thinks we will have more food available for humans to consume in a cooling environment. And that is not because it goes against the science, but that is because it agrees with the science AND the raw math/basic physics, before you have to throw some interpretations you call science into the mix.