| I think you are confusing speculation with scientifically demonstrated evidence. You are linking to the interpretation of data not actually scientifically demonstrated claims. I could post rebuttals to each of them here is just one: https://www.thegwpf.com/ignore-climate-hysteria-brazil-set-t... but it's not really an argument about the future either. The facts are the facts and they are: We are better than ever to deal with unpredictable weather patterns and can produce food places that used to be impossible.
We are better at living places that used to be impossible.
We are better at producing food than ever, we are better at using resources than ever, we are better at dealing with floods than ever, with drought than ever, with extreme weather than ever and I could go on. You are claiming that this will change based on speculation and single points of reference, not science and thus we can then have a speculative debate if you'd like not a scientific one. I haven't seen any evidence that would point to us not being able to deal with the climate in the future better than we are today. So what's your point? What's your suggestion? What is it you want me/us to do we aren't already doing that wouldn't be worse than what we are already doing? |
Benny Peiser (b. 1957) is a UK social anthropologist and AGW denier listed among the Heartland Institute "Global warming experts" despite having no evident expertise in climate science or policy. https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Benny_Peiser