[Thnboi666]

I don't see anything anywhere to show that the way carbon emissions increase global temperature to be false. greenhouse effect is a commonly observed phenomenon, and it's a plain fact that we emit carbon at extreme rates compared to pre-industry civilizations.

we know that pushing this button has coincided with a change in climate trends over the last 200 years. what we have to prove is then that a. this is not a natural change, and b. this change can be slowed down or reversed.

would you say that if science proved we are past the tipping point that nothing should be done to reverse the effect we've already had?

[philh]

You seem to be arguing that climate change is real and human-caused. I do not understand why you're arguing this, when I have repeatedly said that I am not arguing against it. I'm merely arguing that we want to know, contra the user who suggested it didn't matter if it was true or not because we should act the same in either case.

[Thnboi666]

Yeah I understand you. I'm just trying to get across the point that we do know, as far as we can, but it's not enough for most people who are in denial. saying we should act the same way in either case is just an auxiliary way to shut those people up.

I think it's clear that if we could know, and if we could all agree on that, that it would be important to accomplish. but I don't think we can ever all agree on it. so it's not important to accomplish (in fact you could say it's already been accomplished, we already know, and it's not enough, we don't all agree despite the fact. that's what I'm trying to get across by arguing the point of human-caused real climate change)

[philh]

> saying we should act the same way in either case is just an auxiliary way to shut those people up.

I am not convinced that "making obviously terrible arguments" is an effective way to shut up one's political opponents.