On Belly's thread "Climate" some mentioned the fragility of nature.

Fragile nature is a a good catch cry, just as global warming was, before we discovered the planet is cooling again, & they had to change to climate change. For the green movement fragile nature is better, as so few actually get to see nature in the wild.

Ask any grazier just how hard it is, & how much effort must go into keeping improved range land free of woody regrowth intrusion. Or read the following.

I spend some time cruising around the Pacific islands in my yacht. You know, where the yanks won the war, & saw first hand what nature does to the constructs of man, & just how quickly.

One perfect example is Nissan or Green Island PNG At it's peak during WW2 it had 2 large air strips, a large Black Cat amphibious facility, including acres of hard stand, a normal Catalina base, facilities for a number of squadrons of PT boats, over 18,000 men, & the infrastructure to support them. Facilities included Quonset huts on 4Ft thick cement bases to support machinery of a major repair base & more than 10 jetties in the lagoon.

Decommissioned in 1945, & abandoned as is, by 1974 just 29 years later I could find only a small part of one airstrip, now the local light plane airport & the remains of some cement slabs with large trees growing through them.

The Treacheries were even more back to nature. Similar to Nissan in construction, all I could find was a rust pile, the size of a London double decker bus, of discarded fighter machine guns & 3 concrete steps, leading to a faded sign saying "officers club".

Karna Cope was even more overtaken by nature. Once a huge repair base for US patrol boats, most of the cement slabs were broken up by rampant flora, & all that indicated a really large wartime base was a 4" steel pipe spewing water gravity fed from a dam up in the hills into the lagoon.

Fragile nature, what utter rot.

Nature always wins, it's people who lose !

The snow flake generation produce such idiotic and insulting ideologies such as pushed by 10 year old know it all schoolgirls who protest against coal while carrying their iphones. People thinks the tactics of speaking lies often enough make it true. Has not worked for the evolution fantasy or its sister the gw fraud.

Dear Hasbeen,

All over the world and especially in the less
developed societies, the pressure of the
human population and its technologies is
devastating natural ecosystems.

This pressure takes many forms - urbanisation and
highway construction; transformation of virgin land
into farmland, chemical pollution of fresh water; dredging
and landfill in coastal areas, uncontrolled hunting and
poaching especially African wildlife, deliberate and accidental
poisoning of wildlife with pesticides; disruption of natural
predator-prey- relationships; strangulation of millions of
birds and fish with discarded styrofoam pellets, plastic
bags, and other synthetic flotsam, dam construction and
irrigation; and massive deforestation.

Our behavior is having a devastating effect on the other
life forms on this planet, in fact we're having a
catastrophic effect on other species.

The breathtaking diversity of species has evolved in
delicate and precarious balance over many millions of years.
Most of the plants and animals with which we share the
earth have been here a great deal longer than we have.
For a fleeting moment in planetary history, our
technology has given us domain over them, in awe, respect,
and humility, we might just let them be?

cont'd ...

Wouldn't it be nice?

Hasbeen,
There are bits of nature that are fragile and bits of nature that are not. Arid environments tend to be the most fragile on land, though other environments can be fragile because of erosion (which does NOT mean that all environments subject to erosion are fragile).

Rainforest environments have an undeserved reputation for fragility, but they're usually quite robust.

______________________________________________________________________________________

runner,
WTF is wrong with carrying an iPhone while protesting against coal?

>People thinks the tactics of speaking lies often enough make it true.
It's certainly fooled you into thinking the lies are true!

>Has not worked for the evolution fantasy or its sister the gw fraud.
Two cases in point:
firstly, evolution is a phenomenon not a fantasy. The theory fits the observed facts, but you don't care about the observed facts because they're incompatible with your unshakable belief that God micromanages everything. So you reject the facts and go for the lies instead!

Secondly, the gw fraud is the notion that increasing atmospheric CO2 levels is NOT causing the planet to heat up. In reality, observations clearly show a warming trend, and we know that greenhouse gases including CO2 absorb and reradiate infrared, warming the planet's surface. But if everyone accepts the truth, it threatens the commercial interest of the neocons So the neocons shrewdly claimed that global warming was a religion, so that all the gullible Christians (like yourself) were fooled into thinking that accepting the truth was evil, and the gullible among their fellow atheists were fooled into thinking it was illogical.

What will it take to get you to accept the truth?

WTF is wrong with carrying an iPhone while protesting against coal?
Aidan,
Do you really need to ask ?

"WTF is wrong with carrying an iPhone while protesting against coal?"

Nothing.

In fact it makes it much easier to identify the hypocrites.

Come on Aidan, deserts are the quickest to consume the artifacts of man. Just a couple of good sand storms can obliterate a village.

Hasbeen,
I was careful to specify "arid environments" rather than deserts.
Indeed many arid environments are fragile precisely because of the risk of turning them into deserts. Desertification is a very difficult (though not impossible) process to reverse.

___________________________________________________________________________________

individual and mhaze,
Yes, I really need to ask.

I'm surmising that you share the runner-level delusion that the kids want to send us back to the pre-coal age rather than use 21st century technology to solve the problem.

Is that what you're assuming?
And if not, mhaze, what hypocrisy are you referring to?

Yes, I really need to ask.
Aidan,
That's a most disillusioning reply ! It's really spoiling my day !

Just had a tour over a cattle station in Queensland. Things are tough on the land, sure, but the owners of this station poo-pooed the idea that climate change has anything to do with it, and they had the familiy's records going back to 1863 to prove it. Cyclical conditions on the property are no different now that they were 156 years ago.

Listen to real people, not to lying activists, climate 'modellers' and rent-seekers on the prod for more of YOUR money for grants.

ttbn,

thank you, some more pieces of "actual" and real truth, good or bad it is never-the-less a truth.
It fits with other comments which form part of this jig-saw puzzle titled; GW or CC.
As I have said before I am sitting on the fence, with one foot leaning towards the GW and CC thing being a bit of a stretch, which I can only concede to when ALL of the science is in agreeance.
I trust in most systems, in this case I use the example of a jury, (the scientists) deliberating over the outcome of a man charged with murder.
The jury must come to a UNANIMOUS decision.
Not a Majority decision.
The similarity is ironic, and so it is that the scientists, (jurors) must all agree, because if there is one who does not agree, this issue, like sending a man to his death, is a life changing and very serious one, if it ends up being as catstrophic as some would let us believe.
And so it is that as much as some believe that in life we can never get consensus, in this case, I say we MUST.

ALTRAV, you have it backwards: it is failing to act that is akin to sending a man to his death; the costs of decarbonising the economy are trivial compared to the costs of dealing with the effects of global warming if we ignore the problem.

There is a strong consensus among scientists, though it's not universal and nor should it need to be. Scientists are not a jury, and skepticism is a desirable quality for scientists. But the vast majority of the people with more than a superficial understanding of the science find the evidence overwhelming. And those who try to make the opposite case have a clear tendency to resort to deception and obfuscation.

______________________________________________________________________________________

individual,
I see you still haven't answered my question. Was my surmise correct?

To Aidan.

Climate change doesn't matter as much as localized pollution. And it doesn't have as much support for actual effects in the word as localized pollution. Find ways to reduce smog in cities and people will breath easier. Look for ways to address the water needs of both big cities and poor countries (as well as the water needs for farmers and the natural enviornment around you). Do these things and you can be a real environmentalist. Not a person caught up in the roaming lies and misdirection of climite change and global warming. There are things you can do, or can support without having to support a lie along with it.

Not_Now.Soon,

Climate change activists don't give a crap about localized pollution.
- That's somebody else's job -

http://www.news.com.au/technology/environment/climate-change/a-climate-change-photo-that-has-been-shared-more-than-34000-times-has-outraged-facebook-users/news-story/2271ff0fd36fe1be9282b31be1de3977

Not_Now.Soon
It's not either-or, and many of the same actions with reduce both localised pollution and greenhouse gas emissions.

As a civil engineer and the son of a hydrologist, I'm well aware of the problems of supplying water, as well as many of the solutions (and they're not what Alan B. thinks they are).

Unlike most people on this board, I'm not "caught up in the roaming lies and misdirection of climite change and global warming". I stick with the truth – no matter how much the deniers go around with their eyes shut and their ears blocked, accusing the truth tellers of lying!

_____________________________________________________________________________________

Armchair,
Try reading the story you linked to in its entirety: you'll ind it refutes your claim!

To be a civil engineer Aidan you must have a reasonable level of math. How come you have never applied it to the Global warming scam? If you had you would have disproved it completely just as I did when I looked at t it critically.

You would have found that CO2 can not produce more than 3/4 of a degree F to the planet's temperature, even if tripled. To do more requires dreamed up tipping points, that are just that, dreamed up to cover the truth.

Like you I simply believed what the scammer talked about, until climate gate. There was just too much smoke, [& mirrors} revealed in the emails to be true. It only took a couple of weeks to see right through the scam. Why haven't you put the effort in to find the truth?

Hey Aidan, I was just wondering, do you have the math? As an old engineer, I had it all many years ago, but had to work to get it back up to scratch a few years back.

Now I'm wondering just how much math you would have had to do. Is there computer software that does all the stuff we had to do the hard way. In my day we still used things like slide rules, logs, pens & paper, but I guess that may be so old fashioned that you don't need to know the math, if the computer can do all that boring stuff for you.

Hey Aiden,
"Try reading the story you linked to in its entirety: you'll find it refutes your claim!"

Ahh... I see.
You got me, that'll teach me for assuming.
My mistake, I apologise to everyone;
- Good job for calling it out.

Was my surmise correct?
Aidan,
Do you really not get it what was meant by having the iphone in one hand while protesting against coal ?
I only hope for the sake of our future that you're a one-off in your mentality !

Hasbeen,
I remember when I was at Uni, we were told why learning the mathematics was so important: just using software may be sufficient for technical engineers, but as professional engineers we'd be writing the software! And that proved to be correct - I've written a few bits of software using javascript and the Google Maps API.

Nowadays calculators and spreadsheets have totally replaced slide rules and log tables (and to some extent, even pens and paper) but most of the mathematical techniques are still the same. An exception is moment distribution equations, which have largely been replaced by finite element analysis.

My mathematical skills are at the normal civil and mechanical engineer level: much higher than would be expected of the general population, and more than adequate for most purposes. But even if my math skills were up to electrical engineer level, I still wouldn't be able to construct a climate model to place an upper bound on warming from CO2, as you seem to think you have done - there are just too many variables and feedback mechanisms even before you consider the tipping points. I'm quite happy to leave the complicated modelling to the professionals, though I would be interested in knowing how that 3/4°F figure was derived. Would I be correct in deducing (by the scale used) that it's from an American source rather than your own application of mathematics?

You seem to be under the misapprehension that Climategate was an example of fraud. And if you don't know the context of the emails, they do look like fraud. But in context (with Britain's tabloid newspapers misreporting findings and misleadingly claiming that climate change wasn't happening, much like many on this board do) trying to prevent that happening again was a reasonable reaction. With hindsight it was unwise, but they did not commit fraud and the investigation cleared them of that.

And hypothetically, had Climategate been a fraud, it wouldn't mean the other work in this field around the world was also fraudulent.

individual,
>Do you really not get it what was meant by having the iphone in one hand while protesting against coal ?
I assumed it was literal. After all, runner was first to mention it and he's very keen on literalism!

But if there is another meaning and my surmise was incorrect, you'd better explain instead of repeatedly asking semirhetorical questions.

If my surmise was correct, of course, it reflects badly on you - but your repeated questioning only amplifies that.

To Aidan.

Your right that reducing localized pollution would help in the same cause as trying to reduce greenhouse gasses. However, I look at the issue from a long term practical side. Watching the news and the narrative for global warming, change and the general scope of enviornment all emergancies. All of those play off of two core concepts. 1) that we aren't taking care of our planet (which is true), and 2) an unhealthy shot of fear that the end is near (which despite the talk has never showed any real signs of being true).

At first a person moved to help the planet or even " save the earth" will, be supportive to the causes of global warming. But if we pay attention and watch what's being said over and over again you realize it's all crap. My point is that you can still take on enviornmental causes and issues without supporting a lie. Climite Change and global warming do not have any track record of being reliable. Or of acknowledging that they were wrong and correcting their findings. Which is a shame because of how closely environmental issues were tied to global warming, both will sink when people wake up from the shot of fear that the world isn't ending in 5-10 years. Don't be attached to a lie, in fact be cautious of being too close to something unreliable. They'll both drown you when they are found to be in error.

You can care about the enviornment without claiming climite change. We should start doing this now before no one cares about the enviornment due to the lies of global warming.

you'd better explain instead of repeatedly asking semirhetorical questions.
Aidan,
It can't be explained as it goes without saying !

Aidan if hide the decline was not fraud, I'm damned if I know what is.

Thanks for the heads up with current math requirement for engineering.

On the upper limit of CO2s heating ability, even the IPCC agree with me, as you appear to do. You & they have to bring in extremely hypothetical "tipping points", to get up to even a single degree. They have not a single convincing argument to support tipping points.

Just a simple look at the past, with much hotter conditions which did not actuate any mythical tipping points, but cooled each time, kinda knocks that bit of tripe out of the mix.

I agree the system is complex, much too complex for the simple GCMs, which don't even include cloud effects to be even an approximation. They are no better than those monkeys typing Shakespeare.

individual,
If it can't be explained then it's probably wrong.

_____________________________________________________________________________________

Hasbeen,
>if hide the decline was not fraud, I'm damned if I know what is.
The widespread conspiracy to convince people AGW isn't occurring is.

It's disappointing that you haven't told me the source of your figure.

I think you completely misunderstand the concept of tipping points. They're not something the predictions of 1°C warming (or more) relies upon; they're factors that could cause a lot more warming (in some cases multiple degrees) if they're reached.

What the models rely on is the amplification mechanism of the heat from the extra CO2 resulting in the atmosphere holding more water vapour, which is a much more potent greenhouse gas but quickly condenses out when it gets cold (so the amount of water vapour the atmosphere depends on the temperature rather than the amount going in).

But though they're not what the models rely on, tipping points are very important. There are at least three tipping points we have to beware of: firstly melting permafrost releasing large amounts of methane - this has happened already in a few areas, but of course the more widespread the phenomenon is, the greater the problem will be. Secondly, clathrates could decompose as the seas warm, resulting in them releasing lots of methane into the atmosphere. Thirdly a lot of atmospheric warming will inhibit the formation of oceanic stratus, thus reducing the albedo and increasing the amount of heat going into the oceans. Thankfully these last two tipping points are hard to reach - which is just as well, as the consequences would be as dire as most of the alarmist predictions.

And where did you get the idea that conditions were much hotter in the past?

Just thought I'd throw this in the conversation, as it speaks clearly for itself.
Or should I say, 31,000 scientists speak clearly in debunking the overreach of GW or CC.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eiPIvH49X-E&fbclid=IwAR0WvemAbkeUSZCQouaHBk4vLkPliTwQrlaE4XXijcMfNExMo0cs7pHA72M

Watch it and weep.
As I have been saying; there is NO consensus between scientists, and we are being lied to, to subvert the truth, for what reason, I have no idea.
But the fact that they are trying so hard to hide the truth, only makes me suspicious of the whole thing and of course then, the fact that it's all a lie.
Enjoy.

If it can't be explained then it's probably wrong.
Aidan,
Incorrect assumption, it is such a basic factor of mentality that no-one's ever bothered to invent a word for things that go without saying which really is a no brainer. Alas, some people will never understand no matter what.

individual
Our language has no shortage of words for things that are common and obvious.
I think the word you're looking for is "self-evident".

And when people claim things to be self-evident it's usually because there's no evidence at all but it fits their prejudices. For instance Robert Mugabe famously claimed "It is a self-evident evil to deny a child a pure racial ancestry".

Likewise you are prejudiced against young people and/or environmentalists.

_______________________________________________________________________________________

ALTRAV,
Why post a coldlink, and why to such a boring video?
There's no doubt at all that CO2 causes warming, and we know exactly how it does.
There's also no credible alternative hypothesis to explain the observed warming

Has anyone else noticed that Google does not allow them viewing sites that are contrary to Global warming? Every time I go to such sites Google closes down.

Aidan,

were you watching the same video?
Boring?
It wasn't meant to be for entertainment, but for information.
Did you miss the message altogether or what.
Firstly it was a major and credible organisation, presenting well respected people in their field of CC.
It was a conference on CLIMATE CHANGE!
Did you miss the message at the beginning, in bold letters telling us that 31,000 scientists, petitioned the govt to not believe the GW CC thing as it was grossly exaggerated, and we were not heading for any such catastrophe as proclaimed by the alarmists.
Aidan, as I have been saying all along, if there is not consensus in something, I cannot/must not believe in it.
This video was not meant to seek to win a logi, whether it is boring or not is irrelevant.
It is meant to show that firstly, there is dissent amongst the ones who should know better, and secondly, they do not believe that the level of hype about GW and CC are as serious as they are made out to be.
Then we have the question of whether we have contributed any CO2 to make any noticeable difference to this whole debacle.
That's what this video is about, not whether you found it worthy of an award or not.

Josephus,

I thought it was me and my incompetence at computing, but, yes I have, and what's even more frightening is I put your video in my bookmarks so I can shove it up stubborn people's ......, only to find that it has disappeared, when I have gone to access it.
I have replaced it four times so far and each time I have gone to retrieve it, it's gone.
Some bastards are setting an unhealthy and unwanted agenda.
If GW or CC are such a done deal, then there should be no need for all this push-back to the anti GW CC movement.
If it is all true, let the nay-sayers say what they want, because if it is all true then we will all suffer the consequences.
The believers will go on believing and all will be well.
So why make such a lot of effort stopping something irrelevant like the deniers?
That is why your video is in normal print, so that all one does is to blue the link and then play it.
I have stuffed them up by simply referring to your original link and cutting and pasting from their.
Luckily it is hidden and protected from attack by being concealed within OLO, so the only way it can be removed there is if OLO remove it.
I doubt that will happen, because if it did it would send alarm bells out to OLOéns and would lose them their followers.

ALTRAV,
>were you watching the same video?
Yes.
>Boring?
Very dull.
>It wasn't meant to be for entertainment, but for information.
But what new information was there? It was just some rightwing guy droning on about climate change not being such a serious threat, but providing no evidence for his claims.

>Did you miss the message altogether or what.
No I rejected it.

>Firstly it was a major and credible organisation, presenting well respected people in their field of CC.
>It was a conference on CLIMATE CHANGE!
It was a HEARTLAND INSTITUTE conference on climate change. The Heartland Institute is effectively the public policy arm of Koch Industries, and their climate change conferences were just denialists' conventions. I doubt any reputable scientists attended.

>Did you miss the message at the beginning, in bold letters telling us that 31,000 scientists
>petitioned the govt to not believe the GW CC thing as it was grossly exaggerated
No, but it was unimpressive. They weren't specified to be working in related fields (such as climatology and oceanography) and there are millions of scientists around the world so finding 31000 with any view shouldn't be that hard.

>Aidan, as I have been saying all along, if there is not consensus in something, I cannot/must not believe in it.
I can't understand that attitude. Firstly, why do you follow the herd rather than following the evidence? Secondly, how strong a consensus must there be before you believe in anything? You'll be hard pressed to find a stronger consensus on any issue than on this! Thirdly, why are you so keen to believe the reverse when the proportion of scientists supporting that is tiny and the evidence against it is overwhelming?

The video is the sort of propaganda that you'd have to be a proper goose to fall for.

>Then we have the question of whether we have contributed any CO2 to make any noticeable difference
The answer is such a clear YES that I'm surprised you're still stuck on it.

Josephus, what do you mean by "Google closes down"?

ALTRAV, do you honestly believe Google (who own the site that hosts that video) are hacking your bookmarks? Ockham's Razor, and also Hanlon's Razor, suggest that your earlier explanation (your own incompetence at computing) is far more likely.

We're all in this together, and all certainly won't be well if we suffer harsh consequences. But those consequences are easily avoided.

Aidan,

your guilty of the very same things you accuse the people in the video of.
The main point I will respond to from your response is; about consensus.
If the science is so clear and absolute, with no questions or doubts, then why is there still discord and not complete accord?
The answer is that climate is not a fixed quantum, it is variable and therefore because it is not a fixed and set discipline, a lot of it is by reference and historical data all of which is intangible and subjective prone to variations, because of the many factors influencing the climate.
It is very sad that you choose to reject this video on the basis of YOUR personal beliefs, because if you are not a climatologist, you know about as much about CC as I or any other average Joe.
In which case you should be on the fence like myself and not be so quick to take a side, simply because you don't want to feel like the odd one out.
You certainly cannot expect us to believe that you believe in CC because you have done your own research and calculations, and have concluded it to be correct.
You haven't so get back on the fence with the rest of us where you belong.

Look I am not backing away from my lacking in computer skills, but I'm telling you, that the other bookmarks I have are still there as of months or longer.
No there is something weird going on and I just ain't savvy enough to know what it is.
That's why my link is not coloured like it should be.
I found that if I do it the way I have, it is hidden in OLO and can't be touched.
All one has to do is blue the link then play'.
I would like to know if anyone else experiences the same problem if they try to bookmark, Josephus's video.

ALTRAV,
Your assumption that because I'm not a climatologist I know about as little about it as you or the average person is false. Indeed it's idiotic! Knowledge on this (and almost any subject) is a continuum, and anyone can find out more about it, but some choose to remain wilfully ignorant.

?If the science is so clear and absolute, with no questions or doubts,
>then why is there still discord and not complete accord?
Three reasons:
Doubting is human nature. It's normal to doubt, and that's normally a good thing as it keeps you open to the possibilities that others may ignore. It is also common to overestimate the significance of what you're working on, until you have firm evidence to the contrary; again this is normally a good thing because it keeps you motivated.
But it's unlikely anyone at the Heartland Institute conference were there merely because of doubt. The people there had come for the other two reasons:

The second, and most powerful reason is political bias. Doing something about climate change requires government action, which invokes cognitive dissonance in those who believe that government intervention will always cause more problems than it addresses. They totally lose their objectivity, because the possibility that action could possibly require government intervention is too counterintuitive for their feeble minds to grasp. So they conclude it couldn't possibly be true - a deluded conclusion that allows them to support policies that will, if left unchecked, result in the need for far more government action.

And then there are those who just follow the money. Koch Industries (and indeed a lot of other fossil fuel companies) have huge amounts of money available for any scientists who support the denials position. Were that not so, the Heartland Institute probably wouldn't exist, and certainly wouldn't be so active on the subject of global warming.

(tbc)

ALTRAV (continued)

It is not a desire not to feel like the odd one out that determines my opinion. I don't automatically go with the majority view, and never have done. I make up my own mind and have become quite accustomed to being the odd one out. But I do recognise the majority is the majority for a reason. It's sensible to look at minority views to see if there's something they know that the majority doesn't. Very often there is, but in this case there isn't. Alternative hypotheses which were credible around the turn of the millennium, such as global brightening and the effects of changing solar conditions, have since been investigated and found to have only a small effect.

The evidence is clear, and I'm not sufficiently gullible to sit on the fence instead of following it.

Aidan, if you are really look at the actual weather records for the last 120 years, if you can still find them, & what today is the result of homogenisation & "correction" of those records by the Bureau & all other authorities around the western world, you will find one thing.

The entire claimed warming in the last 100 years is down to arbitrary "corrections" in that record. These "authorities" refuse to give meaningful reasons for these corrections.

You will also see, if you are honest, & want to see the facts, that stations the temperatures chosen for use in the planets temperature have dropped most of the records from cold places.

There is just too much smoke & mirrors involved in this for it to be honest fact. If there is so much smoke, & the global warming scammers can't eliminate that smoke, & show an honest picture, they obviously can't be trusted.

When you get statements from senior UN people "that global warming has never been about temperature but equity & wealth distribution", & UK select committees that personal transport is not compatible with decarbonising the planet, you have to be a simple fool to believe any of it.

It is a Trojan horse used in an attempt to reduce the living standard of the masses in the west, & prevent the east from attaining those standards. Anyone who can't see this is not looking, it is so clear & becoming more so daily.

Nice try, Hasbeen, but your claim that it's all down to adjustments is a pack of lies. Even if there weren't meaningful reasons for the corrections, there's been a lot more warming than could be sensibly attributed to them.

But more importantly, the warming is not confined to the western world. It's global, and many countries are experiencing much bigger rises in temperature than we are.

And of course global warming is about temperature, no matter how much people try to use it to advance their own agendas.

And your claim that it's all a conspiracy to reduce living standards is ludicrous. The short term impact on living standards of decarbonisation is negligible, and the long term impact is positive. Whereas the long term impact of global warming on living standards could be catastrophic.

an attempt to reduce the living standard of the masses in the west
Hasbeen,
Well, a reduction in frivolous living would be great for the environment & the mentality of the next generation.

Aidan, just to put balance back in this discussion and to bolster Hasbeens submission, in the interest of truth and disclosure.
He has justified his reasoning or submission, where-as you have merely dismissed them without proof or reason.
So I submit the following to re-align this discussion back on course.
The link below will add further ammunition to the reasons, people and entities behind this GW CC push.

https://cecaust.com.au/media-releases/banks-push-deadly-climate-agenda

This is a completely new and factually revealing declaration of the kinds of evil bastards behind some of the biggest lies and mis-representations getting around.