And if only there was a period in geological history that showed global warming and cooling predated the industrial period and carbon production of man... oh wait
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/05/150528083818.htm
https://www.britannica.com/science/Jurassic-Period/Paleoclimate
To put things into perspective, the current avg world temps is 60.9F. It was 68F back then. Life on the planet did not go extinct.

but to fully answer your question, as far as we can tell we arn't gonna go extinct from climate change, but its consequences will have negative impacts on us @TheGhostAgent

also you do realise that that event caused a mass extinction right? @TheGhostAgent

The ice age event?

There's a lot of events on the planet that created mass extinctions, so which 1 are you referring to?

Because in the link I provided, it referred to a global cooling/cold snap -
***"To be capable of better assessing the current human-made climate change, we must, for example, understand what processes in an extreme greenhouse climate contribute significantly to climate change." In the case of the Cretaceous cold snap, Herrle assumes that due to the opening of the Atlantic in conjunction with changes in oceanic circulation and marine productivity, more carbon was incorporated into the sediments. This resulted in a decrease in the carbon dioxide content in the atmosphere, which in turn produced global cooling.

The Frankfurt scientist's newly acquired data from the Cretaceous period will now be correlated with results for this era derived from the Atlantic, "in order to achieve a more accurate stratigraphic classification of the Cretaceous period and to better understand the interrelationships between the polar regions and the subtropics," is the outlook Herrle provides."***

okay, i didn't realise that you were talking about a cold snap, thought you were generically going to be talking about the warming at the Cretaceous, Jurassic period boundary time

but I think the cold snap is besides the point, the link between C02 and warming is pretty well established and if there is process that can reverse it great! but this isn't really a point against anthropomorphic climate change

Well the major problem is that we probably will have to flat out reject it.

Because otherwise the alarmists will push for genociding the human race.

Because the planet ends in 12 years.

Climate change is such a non-issue once you consider that the global population will dramatically decrease over time.

And fossil fuels are a dying source of energy.

Well if we agree with Nordhaus the effect is far from disastrous.

We probably would see fossil fuels being dumped within 10 years if nuclear wasn't taboo.

I wouldn't consider myself an alarmist so I'm not going to defend a position like that... but you don't have to reject something to know that it exists even if we arn't going to do much about it

(also renewables are becoming actually economical which also helps)

Well consider this.

The Japanese would of never stopped fighting World War 2 if not for the fact the US forced Hirohito to admit he wasn't a god.

That's the level we are at with climate alarmists.

Even if the climate is fine the individual has a responsibility to take care of the environment around them

I don't know that we should write off fossil fuels. One of the primary causes of the CO2 decline the US is cheap gas from fracking displacing fuels that generate higher emissions.

Just wait until the eco-terrorists get a few kills to their names. Its only a matter of time before a soyboy journalist gets an interview with a gas company CEO and decide to save the planet.

thats a huge conflation, but if a company can stay economically viable and transitions to renewables, then no one loses.... fossil fuels are extremely useful and pretty much run the world but if we can economically transfer over to renewables you get the best of both worlds, and slowly thats what we are seeing, but how or if we transition is irrelivant to anthropomorphic climate change being a thing

That's the other thing that really chaps my ass. Sure, fine, we want to cut carbon emissions. Then let us go w/the greenest available tech there is. Nuclear reactors to meet our power needs. And let us revisit LFTRs as it is a significantly safer tech than our current. Instead they fing REEEEEEEEEE nuclear

So I am hard pressed to take them seriously in how they want to save the world if they refuse the science on LFTRs. You can't have it both ways in choosing which science you want to use

yeah, its dumb people aren't looking into it more, but in saying that renewables are getter better faster than you would think, they are getting to the point where they are starting to compete with coal

honestly i was kinda dumbfounded by that

Well Y/N. Green tech is heavily taxpayer subsidized....

your forgetting how much the fossil fuel industry is subsidized too...

you know what I never see brought up thats a perfectly viable power source?

nuclear power

False equivalency in mislabeling 'subsidies' through their expenses/R&D.
The subsidies for solar/green tech is direct govt injection of cash, low rate loans, or consumer tax credits.
The "subsidies" green ppl say the carbon industry gets is based off of their tax write-offs when it comes into exploration/mining expenses. These write-offs would fall under the same category of any other traditional business expenses on their Profit/Loss(P&L) income sheet statements. So this is a gross mischaracerization

Regardless, I think Greta Thunberg is right.

Shut off fossil fuels.

#EatThePoor

thats a really dumb thing to say

and that kid is a moron

I think he's being sarcastic lol

I hope ....

oh