I'm going to give being patient one more try. If you don't bother reading this post (or even my previous one, I'm not going to waste any more time on typing any more out. I do expect some credible academic sources to any further claims of yours too.
Climate fear mongers have been predicting we will alternatively freeze by [insert arbitrary date in 15 years time] then we will boil by [insert arbitrary date in 15 years time] then freeze again then drown when the seas rise etc. etc.
This nonsense has been published since the early 1970's and not a single prediction has even been close.
Any examples? While there examples of fear mongers who are after publicity, at least their (sometimes over the top) claims are extrapolations based on real science, whereas the skeptics just plant their head in the sand.
I know you were trying to make it sound like an absurd possibility, but there are scenarios where it is completely possible to trigger an ice age by screwing with the atmosphere - it involves the gulf stream failing and most of Europe (which is only as warm as it is because of the gulf stream) getting a lot colder.
The earth doesn't need humans to survive, it survived a long time before we arrived and will be around a long time after we have all died out - as all species eventually do!!!!
You are right, the Earth will soldier for a few billion years more, but the discussion here is about how we are making a mess of it.
The reality is that human activity has no ability to alter systems on a planetary scale.
The pure arrogance of such an idea is laughable.
Or are we to believe that a hand full of desert dwelling tribes altered the entire North African region 3000 years ago.
Or maybe a hand full of Inuit's influenced those Greenland glaciers to expand and recede over eons...
@Touring Mars already touched on this, but did you even look at the graph I posted? There has been natural growth and retreat of glaciers over time, and the Sahara was once wet, but the rate of the change was over tens of thousands of years, not 150 years. That can only have been us. See the last couple of pixels in that graph? Yeah, the line is vertical.
The African tribes didnt change the climate, but humans have influenced things for a long time. Australia used to have 6ft tall wombats and 10ft kangaroos until 40,000 years ago when the newly arrived aborigines hunted them to extinction.
All the climate change fear mongering pie in the sky pseudo science aside, the sheer cost of and destruction to the global economy that trying to meet these arbitrary emission reductions will bring will be felt by the little people that climate change disciples think they will be saving.
That is an insult to every scientist out there. It is not pseudo science, and you make yourself look like a fool for trying to call it that.
Let me tell you about peer review, which all of the climate change literature has been subject to. A scientist does some measurements on a sample, interprets the results and tries to publish it in the most influential journal possible, the top of which are the two journals 'Science' and 'Nature'. The more influential the journal, the tougher it is to get your stuff published. It is reviewed by other scientists, who can be real jerks, but in a fair way by critically questioning the work. Anything that doesn't seem right to them goes back to the authors to justify further or explain. The sheer volume of measurements supporting this climate stuff is crazy, so if there was any question to the accuracy of the measurements or interpretation of them, we would know about it by now. Actually, there is very little interpretation to be done to get the CO2 graph above - they are direct measurements using a well accepted technique.
This peer review (almost always) stops the garbage getting through, and when it fails, it leads to things like the vaccine-autism thing. That all came from one, since discredited paper that slipped through. Look at the mess that made - science doesn't want that, hence the peer review system.
While the emissions targets are a little arbitrary, the point is that the world's leaders have almost universally agreed that can't carry on business as usual. They felt that this is important enough that the biggest gathering of world leaders in history met in Paris last week to discuss it, despite what happened there recently.
The cost of doing nothing outweighs the cost of trying to limit the damage. Hundreds of scientists from multiple disciplines (IPCC) and dozens of world leaders agree (which costs them money now, instead of putting it off until after they out of office), but you know better than them, right?
Quality of western life will be reduced, quality of the life around the rest of the 3rd and 4th world will never be improved, people will die from starvation as food production is slowed to "save the planet" and the wealthiest industrialists will simply keep getting richer....
But, hey, the MMGW disciples will "feel good" 'cause they "at least did something".
MMGW cheerleaders will go down in history as the most gullible bunch of fools ever - and you know what, the Al Gore's and their descendants will still be flying around in the Gulf Stream jets, living in those 20 room mansions at the coast, the sea levels will not have risen and the polar ice caps will not have melted - and when these events take place, they will happen in spite of human presence not because of human presence.
Irrelevant to what we are actually talking about. Not going to bother replying to that rant.
