@rphb
[ we can accept everything the climate change proponents claim, and still reject their conclusions. ]
Well, no.
Climate science says that the human induced mass extinction event is many times faster than any mass extinction event before that. And geology says that largest mass extinctions wiped out 90% of families of species. That is not 90% of individuals. That is not even 90% of species. That is 90% of families of species.
But if the planet goes venusian, then we can write off all the vertebrates.
[Because the underlying problem in their premise, is a miscalculation of resources.]
Their? Climate scientists? Their premise is correct.
The only question is for how long BAU (business as usual) continues or not.
[And the primary cause of that is the present global fiat ponzi and pyramid scheme of the central bankers.]
Peak resources principle is also correct, but unfortunately it does not take into account market distortions via fossil fuel subsidies, which enables to delay the onset of slowdown.
[...and to prevent this potential future, we have to sacrifise everything that makes life worth living.]
BS. Breathing in fuel exhaust every day is not something I'd call "makes life worth living".
[Thou mentioned the younger dryas, an event that took place 12000 years ago, I guess that was mans fault too.]
Heinrich events happen during flips from an ice age to an interstadial. Ice ages happened due to Milankovich cycles amplified by feedbacks (including greenhouse gases and albedo). Supervolcano eruptions also happen.
[I am not denying that the climate is changing, it is always changing, one way or another.]
Our climate just left the variability of Holocene climate of the last 10 000 years. CO2 in the air has left the Quaternary period variability and is soon leaving Miocene. We are not in Kansas any more.
[The global temperatures have been many degrees warmer then it is now, ...]
Without fossil CO2 and without contemporary sun.
[We have to accept, that which we cannot control.]
We failed to do that for the last 10 000 years.
[I read a good quote once: in any battle between a relativist and an Absolutist, the Absolutist wins, because he alone is willing to die for his principles.]
Wanna bet?
Relativists are very competitive. Just look at all the Darwin Award nominees - they were not after absolutism, they went all the way for the relative win.
[We need less government, especially less global government and less intrusion, not more.]
We need more strict environmental regulations and enforcements. And stop treating companies as bättre citizens. Corporations are not citizens.
[They need to keep the economy growing like that, in order to keep their scam going.]
Yes. So?
[I remember a time, not so long ago, when they tried to use that argument, to scare people about an imminent threat of overpopulation.]
That threat is imminent. You likely misunderstood the urgency of it and the timescales of population dynamics.
[Then, after having successfully scared people into not having that many children, they suddenly say that we have too few young people to take care of our old. So we have to import them from the third world.]
Those are not the same people.
The Club of Rome were not Soros.
[Overpopulation is never a problem]
Overpopulation is always a problem.
[it never grows faster than the resources that are available to sustain it.]
There are renewable resources and there are nonrenewable resources.
You are practicing demagoguery here.
0
@rphb
[ we can accept everything the climate change proponents claim, and still reject their conclusions. ]
Well, no.
Climate science says that the human induced mass extinction event is many times faster than any mass extinction event before that. And geology says that largest mass extinctions wiped out 90% of families of species. That is not 90% of individuals. That is not even 90% of species. That is 90% of families of species.
But if the planet goes venusian, then we can write off all the vertebrates.
[Because the underlying problem in their premise, is a miscalculation of resources.]
Their? Climate scientists? Their premise is correct.
The only question is for how long BAU (business as usual) continues or not.
[And the primary cause of that is the present global fiat ponzi and pyramid scheme of the central bankers.]
Peak resources principle is also correct, but unfortunately it does not take into account market distortions via fossil fuel subsidies, which enables to delay the onset of slowdown.
[...and to prevent this potential future, we have to sacrifise everything that makes life worth living.]
BS. Breathing in fuel exhaust every day is not something I'd call "makes life worth living".
[Thou mentioned the younger dryas, an event that took place 12000 years ago, I guess that was mans fault too.]
Heinrich events happen during flips from an ice age to an interstadial. Ice ages happened due to Milankovich cycles amplified by feedbacks (including greenhouse gases and albedo). Supervolcano eruptions also happen.
[I am not denying that the climate is changing, it is always changing, one way or another.]
Our climate just left the variability of Holocene climate of the last 10 000 years. CO2 in the air has left the Quaternary period variability and is soon leaving Miocene. We are not in Kansas any more.
[The global temperatures have been many degrees warmer then it is now, ...]
Without fossil CO2 and without contemporary sun.
[We have to accept, that which we cannot control.]
We failed to do that for the last 10 000 years.
[I read a good quote once: in any battle between a relativist and an Absolutist, the Absolutist wins, because he alone is willing to die for his principles.]
Wanna bet?
Relativists are very competitive. Just look at all the Darwin Award nominees - they were not after absolutism, they went all the way for the relative win.
[We need less government, especially less global government and less intrusion, not more.]
We need more strict environmental regulations and enforcements. And stop treating companies as bättre citizens. Corporations are not citizens.
[They need to keep the economy growing like that, in order to keep their scam going.]
Yes. So?
[I remember a time, not so long ago, when they tried to use that argument, to scare people about an imminent threat of overpopulation.]
That threat is imminent. You likely misunderstood the urgency of it and the timescales of population dynamics.
[Then, after having successfully scared people into not having that many children, they suddenly say that we have too few young people to take care of our old. So we have to import them from the third world.]
Those are not the same people.
The Club of Rome were not Soros.
[Overpopulation is never a problem]
Overpopulation is always a problem.
[it never grows faster than the resources that are available to sustain it.]
There are renewable resources and there are nonrenewable resources.
You are practicing demagoguery here.