[alancalverd]

The lives and livelihoods of our ancestors were alternately wrecked and enhanced by climate change, though since it can't have been anthropogenic, I guess the Little Ice Age just counts as  a sustained period of bad weather, as did the transformation of the once-fertile Sahara region. 

The problem with nature is its complete indifference to humans.

[Bored chemist]

If there are other factors in play then there is no justification for any worry at all.

Those whose lives and livelihoods are being wrecked may disagree.

Well, if I understood who that could possibly be I would be deeply concearned.

I don't see a 3 foot sea level rise by 2100 as disaaterous. If that will flood your land invest in a shovel and build some sea defences. Who else is adversely affected?

You say that as if the change in sea level is the only factor. Is that through ignorance, or dishonesty?

[Bored chemist]

The lives and livelihoods of our ancestors were alternately wrecked and enhanced by climate change, though since it can't have been anthropogenic, I guess the Little Ice Age just counts as  a sustained period of bad weather, as did the transformation of the once-fertile Sahara region. 

The problem with nature is its complete indifference to humans.

Nature can be bad, but people can make things better, or they can make them worse.
The problem with some humans is their complete indifference to other humans.

[Tim the Plumber]

If there are other factors in play then there is no justification for any worry at all.

Those whose lives and livelihoods are being wrecked may disagree.

Well, if I understood who that could possibly be I would be deeply concearned.

I don't see a 3 foot sea level rise by 2100 as disaaterous. If that will flood your land invest in a shovel and build some sea defences. Who else is adversely affected?

You say that as if the change in sea level is the only factor. Is that through ignorance, or dishonesty?

When ever I get the sort of answer that allows me to spread my message about a subject, even if I have to shoehorn in a reference to the millions of people who are dying due the use of food as fuel, as I have just, I take it.

I have given you a nice clear opening to talk about all the bad things about a slighjtly warmer world and you, like all the rest, come back with nothing at all.

This strikes me as that there is in fact nothing at all scary about such a warmer world.

[Bored chemist]

When ever I get the sort of answer that allows me to spread my message about a subject, even if I have to shoehorn in a reference to the millions of people who are dying due the use of food as fuel, as I have just, I take it.

I have given you a nice clear opening to talk about all the bad things about a slighjtly warmer world and you, like all the rest, come back with nothing at all.

This strikes me as that there is in fact nothing at all scary about such a warmer world.

It strikes me that two wrongs don't make a right.
Feel free to spread the word about the misuse of land and the fact that people are starving. Who knows- I would probably back you up because it's a valid point.
But why pretend that it's the only problem?
Why pretend that we are just talking about "nothing at all scary about such a warmer world. "?

[Tim the Plumber]

When ever I get the sort of answer that allows me to spread my message about a subject, even if I have to shoehorn in a reference to the millions of people who are dying due the use of food as fuel, as I have just, I take it.

I have given you a nice clear opening to talk about all the bad things about a slighjtly warmer world and you, like all the rest, come back with nothing at all.

This strikes me as that there is in fact nothing at all scary about such a warmer world.

It strikes me that two wrongs don't make a right.
Feel free to spread the word about the misuse of land and the fact that people are starving. Who knows- I would probably back you up because it's a valid point.
But why pretend that it's the only problem?
Why pretend that we are just talking about "nothing at all scary about such a warmer world. "?

Well thanks for the agreement over the use of food as fuel killing people to make already rich western farmers richer but..

I serve up an idea opportunity for you to vent fourth about all the threats of a slightly warmer world and you dodge again. Please say what you think is going to be so scarry that we must change the basis of our economy.

[Tim the Plumber]

Quiet here isn't it?

[Bored chemist]

When ever I get the sort of answer that allows me to spread my message about a subject, even if I have to shoehorn in a reference to the millions of people who are dying due the use of food as fuel, as I have just, I take it.

I have given you a nice clear opening to talk about all the bad things about a slighjtly warmer world and you, like all the rest, come back with nothing at all.

This strikes me as that there is in fact nothing at all scary about such a warmer world.

It strikes me that two wrongs don't make a right.
Feel free to spread the word about the misuse of land and the fact that people are starving. Who knows- I would probably back you up because it's a valid point.
But why pretend that it's the only problem?
Why pretend that we are just talking about "nothing at all scary about such a warmer world. "?

Well thanks for the agreement over the use of food as fuel killing people to make already rich western farmers richer but..

I serve up an idea opportunity for you to vent fourth about all the threats of a slightly warmer world and you dodge again. Please say what you think is going to be so scarry that we must change the basis of our economy.

You didn't "present an opportunity..." you just showed that you haven't been paying attention, while attempting a thread hijack
I find it hard to believe that you really don't understand that climate change is a threat.
It's not as if you actually said that- so that's why I didn't answer.
It isn't a "dodge" not to answer a question you never asked. Since you  actually remembered to ask, here's my answer.

I find the idea of widespread death and hardship sufficiently scary that we should  seek to avoid it.
This was explained to you some time ago.
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=65677.msg486696#msg486696

[Tim the Plumber]

If there are other factors in play then there is no justification for any worry at all.

Those whose lives and livelihoods are being wrecked may disagree.

Well, if I understood who that could possibly be I would be deeply concearned.

I don't see a 3 foot sea level rise by 2100 as disaaterous. If that will flood your land invest in a shovel and build some sea defences. Who else is adversely affected?

You say that as if the change in sea level is the only factor. Is that through ignorance, or dishonesty?

It is through the observation that all other factors are much less backed up by any hypothesis that stands up to even the briefest scrutiny even more than the never going to happen rising of the oceans.

Do you consider shouting an opponent down the way a scientific debate should go or do you think that the traditional, although outdated in climate science, idea of presenting evidence to support your points should be the way to go?

[Bored chemist]

If there are other factors in play then there is no justification for any worry at all.

Those whose lives and livelihoods are being wrecked may disagree.

Well, if I understood who that could possibly be I would be deeply concearned.

I don't see a 3 foot sea level rise by 2100 as disaaterous. If that will flood your land invest in a shovel and build some sea defences. Who else is adversely affected?

You say that as if the change in sea level is the only factor. Is that through ignorance, or dishonesty?

It is through the observation that all other factors are much less backed up by any hypothesis that stands up to even the briefest scrutiny even more than the never going to happen rising of the oceans.

Do you consider shouting an opponent down the way a scientific debate should go or do you think that the traditional, although outdated in climate science, idea of presenting evidence to support your points should be the way to go?

It's impossible to "shout someone down" on a web page; I can't stop you posting, I can't stop people reading what you post.

Would you like to stop trying the traditional stance of deniers-i.e. strawmanning / misrepresentation, and present some evidence.