Climate is far too chaotic to make sense of as to global climate

Big oil has never been the problem. Big Climate is the problem. Face it, every year you range from perhaps below freezing temperature to over 100 degrees and the planet has to collapse in a heap as the climate alarmists tell us happened over 2 degrees. It is a myth climate is harming humans.

 

You have so much common sense you are a danger to the alarmists.

 

Climate isn’t harming humans. Humans are rapidly changing it. That’s the problem.

 

When organized crime got to be worse, it was no secret. Where is this secret heat the alarmists constantly predict? Why are their shorts all knotted up over a mere 2 degrees in over 150 years? And you guys blame oil? I blame the alarmists. It is huge business.

 

That is unproven and for a fact the claims of the alarmists is climate harms humans.
Nobody has predicted a perfect climate.

 

Why is that a problem?

 

You sure do have a vivid imagination. A real conspiracy theory buff that thinks man is controlling climate.

If you study the so called free energy, you learn it all has penalties. Nuclear is the best for earth yet that is also fought against.

 

Let’s ignore the absurdity of this post and assume we could grow more food than we do now. We already produce twice as much food as we actually need as a species. People are still starving. What makes you think that would change?

 

Mass die offs of entire species comes to mind.

 

As skeptical as you are, I am startled you accept at face value what the politicians tell you. Science is not alarmed over climate.

 

Not proven. I do not accept that would be a problem.

 

Food for thought.

 

People where are starving? Not using oil and coal will prevent starvation?

 

So they die off all the time. You really gonna miss that jellyfish you never heard of?

 

What would you not accept to be a problem? That we are seeing species die off due to changing climate or that mass die offs in themselves would be a problem?

 

Jelly fish are one of the few species that are thriving in our warming seas, and they are catastrophic for marine life.

 

You missed the entire point of the post. Reread it and try again.

 

We are but another species on the planet and everything we do is natural. If species can't adapt they die out, that is the rule. Plenty of species not only thrive with humans but rely on them for survival. If we don't adapt we die out, very simple rules.

 

Nothing to work with here. Thanks for trying though.

 

I am not accepting what politicians tell me. I am making an argument why climate is not chaotic based on science.

 

A warmer climate does harm humans. A rise in the mean global temperature by about 1 degrees C. from where it has been during the past 5 year average

will mean higher sea levels, possibly several meters of sea level rise over a few hundred years, and probably more powerful storms. Increased flooding

events are very likely. There will be more insect destruction of forests, which is considerably now in North America. There will be more destruction of

coral reefs.. Arctic sea ice extent would be reduced and probably eliminated in late summer, posing a threat to the stability of Greenland. Parts of

Antarctica would also be destabilized. The weather in N. America will be affected by a loss of sea ice and the weakness of the jet stream - possibly

bringing more extreme weather events to the U.S.

 

Thanks

Did you read my post? I said "REGARDLESS of climate mysteries".

That means my argument for transition to a green economy is NOT based on any consideration of climate science.

It is based on a desire for clean, nonpolluting*, cheap electricity. (*At the height of the 1st covid19 lock-down, high population-density cities like Los Angeles and New Delhi experienced blue skies and clean air for the first time in living memory....).

Solar/wind with battery/pumped-hydro storage backup, is rapidly becoming the cheapest NEW source of energy. That's why within a decade, fossil fuel will become non-competitive, and already banks are declining to back investment in new coal mines.

In the meantime, a 100% recycling industry will have to be developed, whichever technology is adopted, including dealing with nuclear waste...but even nuclear won't be competitive with a developing green economy with its decreasing costs, as outlined above.

 

But a more frigid climate benefits humans?

 

When you are able to do so scientifically, we can take it up again.

 

Who do you suppose owns the vast majority of alternative energy production?