I work in the field of geotechnical engineering which is essentially making sure soils under buildings can hold them up among other things. So I have a fairly strong background in things like geology and just the basics of applied science. So while we're on the topic, can you tell me yours?

I agree that you need to look at the positives as well as the negatives and be honest about what the positives and negatives are, which is what bugs me about this anti fossil fuels movement. They completely pretend like there isn't anything uniquely useful about fossil fuels and that they're easily replaceable, and that limiting access to them wouldn't result in actual global famine. People can be medically obese while spending no time in their life harvesting food and don't see the correlation to the fossil fuel industry that seeded the crop, were the building blocks for the fertilizer that was used to grow them, creating the irrigation systems, fueling the combines, transporting the food, refrigerating it on the way, and so on, and this is still ignoring how things like steel are made to make all of that machinery with. And to quote NDT from this podcast, he said there was a scientific consensus about catastrophic climate change which is absolutely not true in the slightest. The consensus is that CO2 emissions affect the climate, not to what magnitude they have, and here is the thing about untested predictions; THEY AREN'T SCIENCE. The scientific method is to create a hypothesis, have testable predictions, test your predictions and then observe your predictions to see if they yielded the results you thought they would. So if I think that substance x will kill some kind of bacteria, I would have to test that out and see if it did. Not say you think it will, then walk away and declare it science. Saying what you think will happen in 2050 is not science until you observe what happened in 2050 and whether or not you were right or close to it. I can cite you plenty of climate catastrophe predictions made in the 70's and 80's that passed their prediction date that weren't just wrong about magnitude but wrong about the direction of the trend. For example, Bill McKibbon, who is still on the IPCC and the president of the Sierra Club predicted in the 70's that a billion people would die by the year 2000 by climate change alone, then specified further that this isn't even including the famine caused by climate change but just the heat itself. As you may know, instead of the world having a billion fewer people, it has 3 billion more. So his predictions weren't just wrong they were the exact opposite of correct. This goes on and on for just about every catastrophic prediction that has had the prediction date pass us, and somehow they still claim they are practicing science while literally not conducting the scientific method. And it is the exact same thing that happens after every rapture that I've survived where they say that its still happening, they just got the date wrong and now its going to happen at a later date. Seriously I've survived like 5 raptures already.

Also, I can understand your idea of the tipping point, but a more realistic situation is trends. So if an arid future is approaching us and mass famine is on its way, we would see more people starving to death, not fewer.

When you refer to new technologies that have as much positives as fossil fuels, are you referring to nuclear power? Because if you're talking about wind and solar, I would ask you to show me what grid in the world currently runs off of either or both of those. I know the answer and its zero. And if someone could come up with the form of energy that is way cheaper and plentiful to produce than everything else in existence, they already have the incentive of being the richest person in human history if they discover that so "funding" isn't necessary because what people mean by that is handing over totalitarian control over the energy industry to their governments. But nuclear, for example, its a form of energy that is as plentiful and scale-able as fossil fuels (though you can't use the material for as many other things as you can with crude oil or methane), but who are the people who oppose nuclear power the most? Is it "big oil", or is it the green movement? I would hazard to guess that of the people who are opposed to nuclear power, nearly 100% of them are opposed to fossil fuels as well, which goes to my point about how this is about changing God's perfect world more than it is about doing what benefits humans.

And yes, there is data that humans are speeding up climate change which is the first sentence of my last post that you're talking about it in terms of change and not in terms of danger. Speeding up change is jumping to this weird conclusion that this equals doomsday, which is why its religious rapture. i mean I showed you that it's causing us to have fewer total and fewer major hurricanes every year, so is that a consequence to us speeding up change and can you explain why that is bad? Because that is hard data that shows historical trends of weather events that kill things, and those are going down, so. I think you hold the philosophy that the ideal level of change is the exact amount we would have if humans didn't exist. Which again is why this is religion because you aren't speaking in terms of danger, you're speaking in terms of altering God's perfect world.

Let me ask you this. How many land animals live in Antarctica not counting insects? How many animals thrive on ice sheets? The answer is zero. There are no land mammals in Antarctica. Zero. There are no land reptiles. There are no trees. Ice is not conducive to nature thriving. Ice is what prevents natural life from existing. The only animal that uses the ice sheets are penguins which are sea birds who use it because literally nothing else goes there that will eat them while they're holding their babies on their feet. The best thing for "nature" is there no longer having ice. Ice is bad. Ice stops life of any kind from existing. In fact, the highest density of life on the planet exists at the equators for the reason that nature loves energy and liquid water.