@Typo-MAGAshiv I realize this and even bolded it; if you look upthread it comes in response to one of his own assertions in the form of a negative declaration. I brought forward this point repeatedly to highlight the low quality of his reasoning and argumentation skills, and sure enough, he missed several chances to notice and point this out and possibly improve his position and even game as we went.

This is far from my first rodeo. I've been personally watching and engaged in climate and earth science debate going back to the '70s. What @Stigma has presented thus far amounts to the most base normie level of understanding the issue; basically, I can't personally engage or understand the fundamentals of the discussion, so I'm gonna deny the entire thing and go all-in with a slave morality of adopting the position of those who benefit most in the short term, even when my own benefit is marginal and the harm to my progeny extreme.

I've watched the same scenario play out across the entire population over and over; denial that there's even a problem even when it becomes personally impactful before our eyes. Like the stages of death, following such a predictable pattern. *Oh, the earth is TOO VAST for measly little mankind to ever affect it! (where religiotards start and end the discussion incidentally...) Oh maybe things are changing but THE CLImATe chAngeS NAtuRaLLy. Oh maybe we're affecting it BUT NOTHING WE DO CAN FIX IT. Oh maybe technical and regulatory fixes exist BUT THEY ARE TOO COSTLY AND WILL BANKRUPT INDUSTRY AND PUT US ALL INTO THE STONE AGE.

Some very specific examples of denied but ultimately solved problems of too many people burning through too many resources too quickly:

In Los Angeles, the sky would turn ORANGE with a haze that you could see obscuring the view just across the distance of the playground, and dozens of days every year when the smog was so bad that children were required to stay indoors instead of going out to recess and exerting themselves in it; when hundreds of people in marginal health would literally die from the pollution and the air literally hurt to breathe. Nitrous oxide emissions were the culprit, and with innovations like combustion chamber alterations like flame spreaders in ovens and furnaces, and timing and knock control plus three-way catalysts (possible only with unleaded fuel) in vehicles, the air in Los Angeles became clean again DESPITE the population and vehicle miles constantly increasing.

In even the remote Black Forest of Germany, the soil PH was so altered that trees hundreds of years old were dying because they couldn't take up nutrients despite their abundance in the soil. The culprit was identified as sulfur emissions causing acid rain. Naysayers scoffed that if it was real people would be melting, a bullshit argument of the type seen in this thread. Yet with low-sulfur fuels and sulfur scrubbers in large smokestack industries, the sulfur added to the atmosphere got reduced enough that acid rain is now a solved problem despite a steady increase in BTU burning.

The ozone layer was getting damaged resulting in steady measurable increase in ground level ultraviolet radiation that would burn plants and humans in direct sunlight worse than everyone remembered 10 years prior. Naysayers scoffed and said it wasn't so, and then that "they" wanted everyone to live without refrigeration and air conditioning even as we were told as kids not to play outside in the noon sun because we indeed burned quickly. The main culprit was identified as the massive use of chlorofluorocarbon gases as refrigerants and aerosol can propellants, which were particularly pernicious as the reaction was shown that a single chlorine atom in the ionosphere would repeatedly cleave thousands ozone molecules before eventually breaking down to an inert form itself. These gases were phased out with hydrocarbons used as propellants and hydrofluorocarbons used as very effective direct replacement refrigerants and even better and less harmful ones developed for new equipment.

There came a time when ALL the tuna harvested from ALL the vast oceans of earth contained so much mercury that it became dangerous to eat very much of it in a year. Yet scrubbers in coal plants, strict regulation of tailings at mercury mines (letting it leach directly the fuck into nearby rivers) and strict handling and disposal requirements for and phase-outs wherever possible in mercury-bearing consumer goods were all enacted, and tuna being too dangerous to eat isn't even a conversation any more.

These are all discussions and debates that I've seen get denied and argued against, but nonetheless implemented to great mutually beneficial effect, across my own lifetime. I recognize the same denial and argumentation patterns of the above solved-problems in the likes of @Sigma in his hand-waving of the current debate of climate change due to massive fossil fuel consumption WHILE unprecedentedly massive fires made possible by markedly unusual climate conditions actively burn in my immediate vicinity.

@WokeDown I think you are right that people are going to grow different crops to what they have become used to and bread baskets will shift. Egypt used to be biggest bread basket for the Roman empire -producing a surplus of 26 million metric tonnes of wheat. Climate change changed all that.

Food has been at its cheapest in history over the last few decades -thanks to agricultural diesel. That can't last forever. The heavy tractors are damaging the soil for one thing. Climate change and weather instability will add to the pressure on food prices. They will however have to get far worse before they are anything like the proportion of income that our ancestors had to put aside for food.

Realistically its not that big a deal when you consider the things humanity has gone through before with far less technology to protect it but yeah if we could conquer the third world and make it comply, we probably could make a difference to global warming but as it is, they make our stuff by adding to global warming and we send the electronic money for it.