That's pretty funny Aries. By looking at two photos taken half a century apart, you can discern unequivocal proof that climate is changing. It'd be interesting to hear what you thought you saw.

Aries also says the quiet part out loud - that climate alarmism is/wasn't about climate but about introducing socialism in the guise of saving the planet. Somehow he thinks that the poor of the world will benefit by crippling their economic development. Perhaps we should note that the actual poor of the world reject climate alarmism (unless it involves handouts) in favour of standard of living growth. From China to India to Africa and South America, economic development is their only concern and the climate doesn't even score a medal.

"“What are the climate denialists really scared of?”"
While not a denialist myself ( I've never denied that there's a climate) I'd say the only thing they're scared of is making the world poorer by following false science.

Oh, Mhaze the laughs are really on you this time.

The Earthrise photographs taken 50 years apart were examined by scientists and experts with access to much higher resolution images than I ever had with photographs published on television or in the newspapers. If you don’t believe they could ascertain changes, go argue with them.

You really are spooked by socialism aren’t you. You see it lurking in everything. How about this to demolish your crackpot theory that cleaning the atmosphere leads to socialism. London city was repeatedly ravaged by heavy and debilitating fogs in the 1940’s caused by burning fossil fuel (i.e. coal) in nearly every household. In the early 1950’s burning coal in household fireplaces was banned. And miracle of miracles, surprise, surprise, the air pollution ceased and the notorious fogs stopped killing people. And Mhaze, guess what didn’t happen. Socialism didn’t take over and London continued to be the great hub of capitalism that it still is today.

So sunshine, your assertions simply fail at the first hurdle.

Hi Aries,

There are two questions: One is about global warming and the second is about what you do if it's happening.

What flummoxes me is engaging in an environment and economy destroying con that will do nothing about global emissions. Many nations have been banging away at the wind and solar transition for decades for barely more than 20% supply, along with high costs and continuing heavy reliance on fossil fuels.

Remember that France built 150% of its electricity supply with nuclear in 15 years from the mid 1970s. If global warming is an existential crisis they why can't a multinational effort achieve the same or better half a century later?

"If you don’t believe they could ascertain changes, go argue with them."

I have no need to argue with them because they don't concur with your claims. Here's what was discerned...."The Apollo and Artemis images serve mainly as symbolic and illustrative tools that prompt reflection on how much the planet has transformed in a short human timescale" which is a far-cry from your ill-advised assertion that the "photos clearly and undeniably show changes."

"You really are spooked by socialism aren’t you. "

Well no. You're the only who raised it. I was merely pointing out that, as much as the alarmists seek to deny it, their real aim was attack capitalism rather than 'save the planet'. I could inundate you with quotes to that affect, but you're not interested in that, are you?

(OK just one...."“The interesting thing about the Green New Deal is it wasn’t originally a climate thing at all... Because we really think of it as a how-do-you-change-the-entire-economy thing.”... Saikat Chakrabarti, Senior Advisor to US congress.)

"And Mhaze, guess what didn’t happen. Socialism didn’t take over "

Your story has nowt to do with Net-Zero

Mhaze you won't 'go argue with them' because you don't have the balls, or the evidence to support your crackpot ideas. Also, you're the one who equates a pollution-free planet with socialism, not me, so please grow up and own your own conspiracy theories.

"or the evidence to support your crackpot ideas."

I gave you the evidence. You just didn't understand it.

I'm not equating pollution-free with socialism. That's your utter misunderstanding. Indeed it is well established that socialist and poor countries are heavier polluters than capitalist countries.

But again you're confusing net-zero with pollution. They aren't the same thing.