Most people won’t be negatively affected? How do you justify that? How many people in the USA southwest are affected by the mega drought? How many people in China are affected by their mega drought? How many people in Europe are affected by the heat waves? How many people on islands and coastal areas are affected by sea levels rising? How many peoples are affected by glaciers melting and less snowpacks (such as villages in the Himalayas)?

> How many people in the USA southwest are affected by the mega drought?

This is a bad example because the area has gone through similar mega droughts over the last 5000+ years. The Colorado river compact was setup after an unusually wet period and now that the flow has returned to normal they are paying the price.

I’ve been in car crashes before but that doesn’t mean I’m ok with increasing their frequency and severity.

Plenty of questions there. Do you have any of the answers?

Ah, right. This problem is so terrible and sneaky that we (quite conveniently) can't even measure its effect! Just to be safe, we should just assume everything bad is caused by this spectre.

Luckily, some very smart people who are not at all self-interested have told us that if we make great sacrifices and spend enough money that will help us avoid this impossible to measure problem.

How is anything the poster stated not measurable? We can measure the rise of ocean levels, the rise of global temperature, the number of people on said coasts etc...

Take off your tinfoil hat for a quick second.

It makes for great agitprop: play as cardboard characters of perfect virtue or absolute evil.

What are you and GP even talking about?

Hockey stick graphs are just astroturf agitprop in the class of endofunctors, what’s the problem?

When Newton saw that apple fall from the tree, his first thought was:

- I just found a way put my hand in bequanna’s wallet!

I get the strong passions in this conversation, but I don't think name-calling helps anyone.

It’s not going to convince anyone, I know. It’s just I get tired of dealing with small brain nonsense like this. Wind and solar are cheaper power, and from friends looking for tenure I know that any “doing it for funding” is imaginary. If they haven’t been convinced by now, no logical argument could ever possibly convince them. I could use an argument in pure mathematics, and they would say there is no evidence for any of my axioms. They keep asking for evidence and debate, but they are simply lying. I’m just returning the same level of respect.

You have a choice:

1) Say "you're so dumb" and everyone flags you, so you have little impact on the conversation

2) Don't say "you're so dumb", and enough people will vouch for you that your comments are visible

If strong emotions were facts, I suppose you'd win this argument.

Let's see what you think in ~10 years when the newest, focus-group tested climate crisis de jour is being pushed after "climate change" is quietly disproven and stops being sexy.

I studied meteorology in university, and I’ve read a lot of papers in climatology and adjacent fields. Please come back and talk to me once you understand atmospheric radiation, the Madden-Julian Oscillation, ENSO, the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum, how isotopes can serve as proxy data, general circulation models and how they are modified for climate, economic models of ecosystem services, and how tropical storms cause economic damage. I’ll wait.

If anything your wallet is lighter because of the push for "green" technologies, which are usually much more expensive than "dirty" ones. Just compare price of Tesla vs ICE car. Not to mention things like "carbon tax" (already partially implemented in the EU)