Re: Whoops! The Atlantic Makes Trump Look EPIC In Cover Intended as a Smear

The Horny Goat wrote:

On Fri, 20 Sep 2024 10:10:20 +0200, D <nospam@example.net> wrote:
 

You quoted an article that contradicts your basic premise that human
activities do not cause any Global Warming.
I will recommend to the committee that, although D for usually stands
for Deaf or Dumb, you shall be known as D for Dunce, to wear a pointy
cap and sit in a corner away from your keyboard.
>

>
Nope, read again. Carefully.

 The trouble with the whole global warming meme is that Earth has
demonstrably had wide temperature swings going back hundreds of
millions of years and the present is in fact one of the cooler times.

That is not a problem at all.
First, the biosphere had time to adapt to those temperatures, which changed very slowly, while we are now forcing change at a rate orders of magnitude higher.  Have you noticed how the trees in your area had plenty of time to develop resistance to the mountain pine beetle so that half of your lodgepole pine was not lost?  What?  They didn't?
Secondly, we were not supporting eight  billion people in those past climates.  We did not have trillions of dollars of infrastructure tailored to current conditions (such as, for example, being above water) which will be wiped out.
Think the site C dam is costing a lot of money? Try relocating London
(Vancouver's average is at 34m, so you're fine for a long time even in the worst case scenario).

 But most importantly it's established that there are 'tipping points'
which nobody really knows for sure where they are so even if climate
swings are 95% natural, that 5% portion from human activity COULD push
it over the edge.

It's scary enough without tipping points.  A world 3C warmer would be very different.  Costs of adaptation would be in the trillions, and even so the forced relocation and death toll would be vast.  The world would be much poorer.
Four children have been born in my family in the past year.  Most of them will probably live to see the year 2100.  What kind of world do you want them to see?

 (And this works in both directions - in the 80s we were more worried
about cooling rather than warming. I'm sure I'm not the only one here
who remembers all the talk of "nuclear winter")

That is an entirely separate issue, only to come about in the event of nuclear war or asteroid impact.  Nor is that science nearly as settled, though  there's evidence of a freeze after the K/T impact.
William Hyde