Scandinavia and the World

Comments #9592954:

Bye bye ambassador 8 2, 11:11pm

[ The two camps both have their arguments and their data, and neither side can be clearly ruled out. That is the major problem with this conflict, the ambiguity. ]

No, there is no ambiguity. There is climate science and there are deniers who do not practice climate science. The intermediate group would be the sceptics and the Berkeley Group was one such example but that group of sceptics came to the conclusion that the climate science was right (except for Judith Curry, who clinged to "alternative facts").

[I don’t get what thou mean by thy rejection of the right to live and the right to multiply.]
It boils down to the limits of a bacteria population in a Petri Dish.
And if the population somehow gets too large, it drowns in its own gravity well.

[And so is the climate, if the global temperatures were to rise above a certain threshold, we would get a new iceage.]

What??? No!
The Younger Dryas was NOT an ice age. It was a temporary interruption of sudden warming on the northern latitudes. The glaciers did not grow back. But the rest of the planet continued warming. And the temporality of it obviously depends on the particular set of forcings and feedbacks. And the onset of such temporary interruptions does not begin from a threshold absolute temperature, it depends on the speed of change (thus on derivatives and integrals).

[ But the point is, we need to look at the actions themselves. Of what they are inherently and on their own. We cannot just look at the consequences, because that leads to an infinite regress, it ultimately takes us nowhere. ]

Actions are part of the consequences.