[EsssM7QVMehFPAs]

Your argument being? That human-induced global warming affecting the life of millions, potentially billions of people, should be ignored because worse has happened in Earth's history? Because humans also adversely affect different parameters of the environment?

Also, it is easy to pinpoint this issue to a little girl from Sweden, but unfortunately she is just repeating the general scientific consensus. Harder to argue against that, is it?

[arethuza]

"Harder to argue against that, is it?"

I'm beginning to think that countering illogical arguments with logical ones is actually some kind of tactical error in many situations - I have no idea what the alternative is but I increasingly feel that it is too easy to goad people (particularly those with some kind of scientific training) into types of arguments that really don't resonate with a lot of people.

[antocv]

> Your argument being? That human-induced global warming affecting the life of millions, potentially billions of people, should be ignored because worse has happened in Earth's history? Because humans also adversely affect different parameters of the environment?

No.

My argument is, fuck the climatists, and their self-good crusade, since its not good, and their suggested solutions would actually cause more poverty and hurt poor people more.

My argument is, the rich are the problem, not pollution per se. 0.1% of the world population can pollute and destroy the environment of the rest. They can even ensalve the rest without destroying the environment.

Thats where the problem lies, oppression of the very few on the many, thats the problem we need to solve. The "climate atmospherists" are a side-show, stealing the light from the real issues.

EDIT: scientific consensus

Im not arguing against sci consensus, this climate issue is not "science" its politics, and should be treated as such. Everything is politics, remember that.