Global warming - an urgent problem requiring radical solution (no politics or religion)

If you actually knew what a woke world was, and bigoted content,.....you'd probably be violating Elroch's standards.

Earth's more natural climate functioning has been altered by human activity over the last 200 years. The "more normal" temperature would be about 2.5 degrees F less than in 2023. There is no way to prevent more ever-accelerating heating without some alterations to our present lifestyle. The present conditions are not natural.

Lol. The same people that think global warming is okay are also anti-vaccine, so that would go nowhere fast.

As for the discussion itself, I really wonder if the other side could ever manage to stop arguing using false dichotomies, even if they understood what they were.

Your lack of basic knowledge is staggering and amusing. There are malaria vaccines and treatments, just as there are flu vaccines and treatments--neither are infallible. There are no technologies on the horizon for preventing hurricanes and other warm-water based storms--they have been occurring for thousands of years with no successful mitigation processes developed yet and none on the horizon. There is no such thing as tetraditoxin. Tetrodotoxin is a deadly (to humans) neurotoxin found in some marine life, but I mentioned domoic acid, common in clams, oysters, lobsters, sardines, anchovies, squid, mussels, scallops and other bivalves and fish when certain types of algae bloom in warm waters. Historically found around Japan and the west coast of North America, it has popped in other places, such as Prince Edward Island. When water temperatures cool, the sea life quickly sheds the acid (except for razor clams, who take a long time to become safe). Public health agencies on the Pacific coast regularly test species subject to this condition and fishermen are forbidden to harvest certain fish for much of the year. Warming Atlantic coastal waters will raise the danger there--perhaps you can soon have a shrimp salad, fall into a coma, and suffer severe permanent amnesia.

Elroch is correct.
But there's another point and that is that the ways in which IPG might find new stupid arguments are an infinite set.
There is some contrast IPG's posts versus EE's posts.
It seems they both go all-out to maximize the stupidity of their postings but EE finds more creative ways to do so.
ukace on the other hand - thinks he has 'sources'.
Whichever of the three forms of denialism - the foolish premises of their postings form an infintite set.
Point: even though global waming denial tactics can be categorized they can and will keep finding new ways to make their invalid arguments.

Malaria can easily be eliminated as Singapore has shown. But it does require an effort and a high-functioning society. Made easier through fossil fuel use.

I think I have an idea of what calling bluff means now. Here is another example in addition to the one I provided earlier. MSN has an article from the Daily Express US about a weather forecast. I think it's alarmist, but others may think it's perfectly normal. Probably because they are used to it.

"Christmas travel to be hit by huge snow bomb as Americans told to plan ahead" Just like so much of the rhetoric here, wild exaggeration seems to be the norm. By "snow bomb" what they actually mean is completely normal winter weather. Just like our "bomb cyclone" that produced a normal, and in places less than normal, amount of rain.

You realize that the number one mission of meteorologists is the safety of the public? Not only are they remarkably accurate, it's their duty to be cautious.

I have no doubt earths climate has been altered, by some degree, from humans. But so far that's a good thing. The butterfly effect is a real thing, in my opinion.

2.5 degrees less than what we have today would be a pretty bad idea. We currently rely on warmer weather for health and safety around the world. If the worlds population was a tenth of what it is now we could probably get away with cooler temperatures like that. But we have 8 billion people to feed and keep safe. A warmer planet is the only way to accomplish that. By returning the earth back to it's more normal, HIGHER, temperature plants, animals, and people will thrive. Because all of those things prefer heat over cold.

Quantum Mechanics + Computer networks + Yuval Noah Harari's new book (Nexus, 2024) = your "Enlightenment" around GCC (writ large) -- for anyone willing to invest the reading time needed. Enjoy.

No, I was not aware of that. I am not aware of any meteorologist mission statement or primary purpose to be that of safety. I thought safety was the realm of firefighters, police, the military, etc.

I thought meteorologists were primarily supposed to be focused on predicting the weather. Just like a news caster is not supposed to be part of the news. They are supposed to just report the news and let the viewer decide if it's "safe" or not.

Yes, according to scientific estimates, around 90% of all life on Earth is found in the ocean, making it the primary habitat for most living organisms on the planet. 

I'm glad you are putting into visual form what resides in the minds of a few people here when it comes to this topic. An excuse and explanation that's completely blank.

You said life prefers warmth, but on Earth most life prefers colder temps.

No, I'm afraid you've been misled when it comes to that.

Too hot is bad, too cold is bad. So just right is better. The average earth temperature is something like 59 degrees. Which is about 27 degrees above freezing. If an area is constantly 27 degrees higher or lower than the earths average, what happens?

What happens if an area is constantly 32 degrees? How much life will that area produce? And what about the opposite? What about an area that's constantly 86 degrees? How much life will that area support?

Imagine yourself in either one of those situations. Without proper protection from the environment, which one would you last longer in? Which one are you more likely to thrive in? It's pretty obvious when it comes to supporting life, warmer is better than colder.

Fantasy scenarios (like places with constant temperatures) are of very little relevance.

It's what happens in the real world, and the (probabilistic) distribution of what will happen in the future in different possible scenarios.

90% of all life is in the ocean. Ocean life overwhelmingly prefer colder temps.

Air pollution is responsible for about 1 in 5 deaths in South and South-East Asia (1 in 8 globally, but some countries are much worse) - a much greater problem than the severe problem of malaria.

They need clean, sustainable energy for multiple reasons.

I am not sure everyone has experienced what severe air pollution is like. I first experienced it in the summer in Athens, but the worst I have ever experienced - 6 times over WHO limits for lethal pollutants - was in Baoding in China. The pollution hits you in the back of your throat like you are walking into the fumes from a furnace. There is an instinctive feeling of being suffocated (the real problem is more insidious),

90% of all life is in the ocean? Well that could be, but that sounds like it might be another one of your guesses. Like meteorologists' main mission is public safety.

Even if you believed life prefers cold, do you believe that's how life started on earth? From a cold environment or a warm one? In other words, do you honestly believe cold is better suited to creating and maintaining life on earth over warm conditions?