I thought I was adequately clear. If you need me to make my point more clear, here you go:

> > > It seems reasonable to me to assume that nothing bad would happen if we stopped fossil fuel consumption right now.

For what most people mean by "right now", something bad happens - many, many people die. You chose that phrase; I didn't. So within the normal meaning of the phrase, you are very wrong.

And I thought I was adequately clear when I initially specified:

> Nothing bad will happen if we suddenly stopped all fossil fuel consumption and replaced it with renewable energy.

Do you really need me to repeat this for every subsequent reference to the hypothetical? You yourself acknowledged it in your first comment, so you obviously understood it.

But if you need me to, fine, replace the sentence you quoted with:

> It seems reasonable to me to assume that nothing bad would happen if we stopped fossil fuel consumption right now and replaced it with renewable energy.

Right. (I was actually coming back to edit my post to acknowledge that you said that.) But...

We can't actually do that right now.

When can we? 10 years? With all the combines, and all the tractors, and all the semis having to be electric? Can we even do it then? We maybe can in 20...

If it's 20 years from now before we can do it, that's not "right now".

The problem with the way you said it is that it makes it sound like we could do it now (for reasonably normal values of "now"). We can't.

That's the neat thing about hypotheticals: they let us talk about and consider situations which aren't real. I can say crazy, insane things which have no basis in reality without said things affecting reality in a negative way! It even lets me construct arguments that work under specific preconditions, even if those preconditions aren't met.

It's incredible how rabid people get when talking about phasing out fossil fuel. In your eyes, I haven't stated clearly enough that the hypothetical (which you keep telling me is impossible) is a hypothetical. Now, any normal reader might see that and think "Hm, if that's not possible, he's surely talking about a hypothetical". But not you, you keep going about how I haven't made it clear enough that it's a hypothetical. Have you stopped to reflect on why you're acting the way you are?

OK, hypothetically, if we had all the electric infrastructure and vehicles ready to go, sure, let's switch now. Hypothetically, that would be fine. But as you said, that doesn't affect reality. So, you win the point. Enjoy your nice win. But in the real world, so what? In the real world we can't do it now, so what good is your hypothetical?

As for your second paragraph... Physician, heal thyself.

Hypothetically my initial point stands: reducing fossil fuel consumption by replacing it with something else, and artificially manipulating the weather, are in completely different ballparks regarding danger.

What are you trying to argue about?

I dunno, weather modification has been going on since at least the 80s and it’s pretty unnoticeable. I don’t see how we can peacefully stop China and Africa from burning coal, so I’m more interested in unilateral, noncoercive solutions.

Really? How have we been manipulating the weather to reduce climate change since the 80s?

It’s not uncommon in places with droughts.

In which places with droughts have we used weather manipulation to reduce climate change? I'm not talking about increasing rainfall, I'm talking about reducing climate change. Please share a specific example where we've done so since the 80s.