What's best for Earth?

You really seem to believe that if you say a crazy thing over and over, the crazy thing becomes true. Please show us your science demonstrating that a 7C global temperature rise has zero probability under any conditions.

Equatorial Africa never sees wet bulb temps of 35C. Do you even know what a wet bulb temperature is?

During the PETM. Which was a mass extinction event. Oops. Darn that liberal reality.

When the continents are in completely different positions, the earth won't have the same climate sensitivity. You're just not very good at this.

So among everything else you're totally clueless about, you don't understand cloud formation or cloud feedback.

 

Finding ways to reverse and contain the environmental damage we have been causing, of course. There is a certain population limit that a finite planet such as this one imposes, so ideally we will have to expand out into space, to other environments where we can thrive. The alternative is going to be some kind of enforced population control, and no one wants that.

 

How will you do that - when the people who protest the loudest, have the most destructive lifestyle of all.

 

urban life takes it's toll on nature in many, many ways...

i'm in agreement with fixing and reversing the problems... lets start with exterminating all urban life forms...

 

People can live in urban areas and NOT travel, NOT drive cars, NOT keep buying new clothing, NOT run airconditioning 24/7, etc.

Though generally speaking, urban lifestyles are terrible. No argument there.

 

No, that is the belief of anti-fossil-fuel scaremongers.

I said as a result of increased CO2 from using fossil fuels.

Which proves your claims are absurd.

Yes. Which is how I know your scaremongering is absurd.

Nope. Temperature remained 12C-14C higher than today for many millions of years in the Eocene, and life, including large animals, thrived and diversified.

Sensitivity to CO2 is guaranteed to be low no matter what the continents' positions. Temperature naturally governs CO2 via its solubility in the oceans, not the other way around.

I understand it incomparably better than you, anyway.

 

Bzzzzzzt. Thanks for playing.

The Eocene was known for having a relatively small temperature difference between equator and poles. It's not the the tropics were extra hot. It's that the poles were warm, bringing up the global average way up.

And so your theory faceplants, as all your theories do.

Why do you think your cult didn't tell you that? Why did they want you kept ignorant?

The rest of your post was "BECAUSE MY CULT SAYS SO!" over and over. Boring.

 

<yawn> Too bad you are such a sore loser....

Right: because high temperature accelerates evaporation of water from the oceans, the tropics become cloudier, moderating their temperature. That is why temperature can't increase to the fatal levels in your silly scaremongering claims.

<yawn> Wrong again. I just schooled you again, planting your theory's face in the barnyard where it belongs. Again.

<yawn> Why does your cult try to keep you ignorant of the relevant facts of physics, like the physics that governs evaporation, clouds, and radiative heat transfer?

As they say in Japan, "It's mirror time!"