Climate Change is Normal and Welcome in My Opinion

I think its serious if the scientists do. But there could be other forces at work here. I.e. The psychology of a politician who will more than likely have their own self interests at heart which is keeping their job. I dont think the politicians could stomach implementing radical change because they know the electorate wont take it either.

To consume less, we basically need to become much poorer. Imagine the riots if fuel prices doubled and clothes and other items were tripled in price. Then you would have to deal with huge job losses on a massive scale.

And this is why I reckon we are screwed. We have become too used to a comfortable lifestyle which demands heavy levels of energy consumption and we are not will to compromise it in any real way.

Opinions are like assholes everyone has one. Meanwhile there are facts and the facts tell us we are heading into big trouble with climate change. What the opening commenter thinks is fortunately irrelevant to reality where climate change is happening.

Air quality can get bad in many parts of Ireland not just Dublin.

I have a close family member who is a scientist who lectures at a university. She basically said the way anthropogenic global warming had been politicised meant science and the scientific method was esentially dead. You get the apparent massive consensus because research funds allocation works on a faulty model in that funds go to proposals that are likely to support the accepted narrative and status quo and applications proposing contrarian views won't get a look in.

Then there is the cancel culture whereby academics who have expressed disbelief in the Global Warming theory have been attacked with calls for their sacking in many instances, making many academics fearful of expressing negative opinions openly. Academic institutions value their image and prestige above all else.

This family member doesn't believe in anthropogenic global warming. She went over some of the seminal papers and arguments and was horrified at the open manipulation of ground station temperature measurements where the data was altered to fit the narrative, which is why the individuals involved famously refused to publish the raw data.

A scientist speaking out against the AGW religion needs the courage/stupidity of someone trying to speak up for a witch and against the church and the burning of witches in general - if the mob didn't tear the contrarian limb from limb, or lash them to a stake and burn them alongside the accused witch first, the church would have stepped in and done it.

There may be apparent near 100% consensus among climate scientists, but that is not the case with scientists from all disciplines.

I was just making the point it can get pretty bad in different parts of Ireland, not just Dublin, I don't know anything about wind power and how it works tbh

Taking your points in sequence:

Can you be sure of that or do you just feel that? Atmospheric physics is a hard science.

The IPCC report has estimates of the size of our influence actually. It gives a tighter estimate than before of the impact of a doubling of atmospheric CO2 above pre-industrial levels for example. The impact of doubling CO2 is estimated at between 2.5oC and 4oC.

You have yet to answer the questions I put to you in a previous post. Do you agree that humans are pumping millions of tonnes of carbon into the atmosphere?

Your assertion that nature is a perfect balanced system goes along way towards explaining your world view. You seem set on the assumption that nature if left will sort out this mess. However what you fail to grasp or deliberately ignore is that nature cannot adapt to this specific scenario as fast as we are creating it. We are destroying the means that nature would employ to scrub co2 from the atmosphere while we emit GHG.

I must remind you that perfect symbiotic systems are in fact more prone to destruction as they are so finely tuned. Nature can go off balance, the Permian-Triassic as a classic case in point. A volcano in Siberia belched millions of tons of this "harmless and inert" Carbon Dioxide into the atmosphere.

This harmless and inert gas then acidified the oceans causing a mass extinction of marine life. It took nature millions of years to rebound from this great dying. Are you noticing a similarity here?

There is plenty of proof about the correlation of co2 levels and temperature increases. This is an extremely well understood relationship.

Pumping co2 into this delicately balanced system must have an effect, if not climate change then what? By your own logic It can't remain static as it is perfect.

Also in relation to the proliferation of humans not damaging this perfect harmony you seem to thing nature has. On every continent that humans have expanded to, our ancestors he driven to extinction nearly all the megafauna that lived alongside them. This is a salient example of how humans can proliferate to the throw a system off balance.

I wouldn't be bothered watching such propaganda as that.

At the end of the day, these arguments could go around in circles for the next 30 years. The fact that there is an argument in the first place is indictive of the real possiblity that man made climate change is a real issue.

If there is no contingency planning for this possibly, your argument falls very short. If you are wrong, the consequences will be horrific and possibly irreversible.