The implicit question was whether you think we should endeavour to return to an ice or not.
Personally I'm on the not side.
And also
The only people I have seen deny climate change are the AGW idiots who think the climate has ever been stable, and who demand global action to try to put it into some sort of climatic stasis.
The rest of us have always accepted the SCIENTIFIC FACTS that:
(a) The Earth's climate has always changed and always will.
(b) The Earth's climate is EXTREMELY COMPLEX and cannot currently be accurately modeled in a computer.
(c) While humans, like EVERYTHING ELSE, have SOME effects on climate, there are plenty of other causes of change including many we probably do not know/understand. Some of these other sources, like the sun, have a far greater impact than humans.
(d) The Earth has been both significantly hotter and extremely cold many times in the past before there were enough humans to have had ANY effect on any of those previously very extreme changes.
We ALSO embrace things like the laws of economics, the record of human history, and accept basic human nature - so we:
(a) Believe humans will continue to advance technologically and thus we as a species become better able to deal with climate change with every passing decade, making it retrograde to go nuts trying to offset it now - even if we could, and if we could afford it, and if its happening.
(b) Know that far more people are dying today from other sources than from climate, and that reducing some of the deaths and suffering of people TODAY is achieved using some of those fossil fuels people like you want eliminated or made too expensive because YOU claim it will save some future persons from some imagined future horror.
(c) WE actually believe a pet theory should be PROVEN before we implement policies that have a negative impact on the lives of millions of people in the name of "solving" the supposed problem. In fact, we'd like to not only see the problem PROVEN to exist, but we also want to see that the proposed solution will actually work, will be the most cost-effective option, and will have the least impact upon the lives and liberty of the people who are alive today.
Ignoring the extremely well worn points and distraction arguments you are hashing over, I’ll just address point C of your conclusions:
What proof would you accept? What are the goalposts. You have the standard counterpoints for every scientific argument, what is the point of trying to prove anything to someone who so adamantly doesn’t want to believe something? The people that actually work on this stuff are very sure that the greenhouse gas effect has been proven beyond a doubt. Thousands of studies, and billions of dollars have been spent and the huge majority of it points towards human caused climate change being real. People have been giving you the proof, and they have been giving you the solutions, but you demand more?
Fine, flip it around: why does the majority of evidence, expertise and smart money think that it is real? I need better proof of your “pet theory” that this is natural. As you say: “ WE actually believe a pet theory should be PROVEN…”
By definition: if human climate change hasn’t been proven or disproven, then the opposite idea of natural climate change is just as unproven, but has the added problem of being the chosen theory of people who mostly aren’t domain experts, but do believe that they will be made personally worse off in the short term by mitigation efforts.
We are due to enter another ice age, quite possibly in our lifetime. It has already been warmer longer than 2 of the past three warm periods. Quite possibly because of/thanks to AGW.
The oil has run out and now 2 miles of ice above new york is coming to a store near you.
So you’d rather believe that an ice age will come in our lifetime based on pretty much no evidence, but not that a declining penguin and seal population is beyond comprehension when you have numbers?
Do you understand sea levels rise when it is warmer and fall when it is colder?
In our very recent history, sea levels were 10 meters higher than they are now, that means in our very recent history it was significantly warmer than now. back when the nile was the green cradle of humanity.
From here the only way is colder - enough ice formed in the last few thousand years to drop the sea level by 10 meters, and even if it did warm and melt enough ice to rise the sea levels back to 10m higher than now, Penguins already survived it. We will to.
going back to 2 miles of ice above your fav city puts us back in the era passing bible stories verbally (but at least we know now they will use gaza and tel aviv instead of soddom and gommah).
Oh, and btw, the decline in the Penguin population is almost certainly China overfishing, do you have any idea how huge Antarctica is?
But don't let a few facts stand in the way of you believing what you read in the local tabloid.
By no evidence, I suspect they mean that you are cherry picking very limited evidence out of a broader context to match your theory, even if the broader context of that evidence does not support your theory.
For example: the singular graph that you linked above is from a course that has an entire module on sea level rise, that actually addresses and rebuts the exact arguments that you are making: https://courses.ems.psu.edu/earth107/node/1494.
When the materials you are citing preemptively entire sections debunking your specific arguments and use of the evidence, it is - at best - a sign that you have misinterpreted your own sources by not considering all of the available evidence. It also might mean that your misinterpretation is so common that they can see it coming, leading to the conclusion that you aren't following the evidence, but being led. There are less charitable interpretations, as well, but they aren't in the spirit of the site.
Your idea of debunking must be different than mine.
Posting a link that says exactly what I said:
"but you can easily appreciate that sea levels have been much higher than today for much of this period of the Earth's history"
Is pretty much the opposite of debunking as far as I know.
Thank you for so perfectly illustrating my point about selective evidence taken out of context to illustrate the opposite of the actual point being made. You couldn't have picked a better sentence on that entire page.
The full quote for those that care:
"We don’t need to go into a lot of detail, but you can easily appreciate that sea levels have been much higher than today for much of this period of the Earth's history. Scientists have correlated these fluctuations with changes in atmospheric carbon dioxide and ocean and atmospheric temperatures, using methods described in the next few pages.
We also must acknowledge here that some people may argue that sea levels have always fluctuated, so why is sea level rise today a big deal? Hopefully, we can shed some light on this question by looking at the changes in sea level through the history of the Earth, while considering the causes for these changes. But, perhaps the simple fact that seas are rising faster than ever before in human history is enough to facilitate action and adaptation. You also may ask, “What can we do about it?” This question will be addressed in later modules."
Going back to where I originally jumped into this conversation, its pretty clear that no level of evidence will change your position. You ask for conclusive evidence where plenty exists, and treat inconclusive evidence as unimpeachable proof of your position. You are backfilling evidence to support your position instead of building a position from the evidence. You will continue to ignore inconvenient scientific evidence, while stretching misunderstood evidence to the breaking point.
In short, there is no point continuing to debate science with someone so utterly set on their position.
I'm done here. You can have the last word if you want to keep digging your hole.
So you accept the earth was hotter than now and the sea levels much higher than now in our recent history then?
Do you know why the earth is so much colder when the southern hemisphere is in winter than when the northern hemisphere is in winter?
Because anyone not seeking money from the green energy VCs will tell you all about that and how the earths axial precession causes 26k year ice age cycles - what happens to the climate when the sun is mostly shining on ocean rather than land. Guess which phase of that cycle we are in right now...
what was your rationale for accelerating that descent into the next ice age again? Cos yeah, no amount of claims based on zero facts is going to convince me of anything, I find your assumption that humanity under miles of ice a worthy endeavour to be nothing short of grotesque malthusian snake oil.
Personally I'm on the not side.
And also
The only people I have seen deny climate change are the AGW idiots who think the climate has ever been stable, and who demand global action to try to put it into some sort of climatic stasis.
The rest of us have always accepted the SCIENTIFIC FACTS that:
(a) The Earth's climate has always changed and always will.
(b) The Earth's climate is EXTREMELY COMPLEX and cannot currently be accurately modeled in a computer.
(c) While humans, like EVERYTHING ELSE, have SOME effects on climate, there are plenty of other causes of change including many we probably do not know/understand. Some of these other sources, like the sun, have a far greater impact than humans.
(d) The Earth has been both significantly hotter and extremely cold many times in the past before there were enough humans to have had ANY effect on any of those previously very extreme changes.
We ALSO embrace things like the laws of economics, the record of human history, and accept basic human nature - so we:
(a) Believe humans will continue to advance technologically and thus we as a species become better able to deal with climate change with every passing decade, making it retrograde to go nuts trying to offset it now - even if we could, and if we could afford it, and if its happening.
(b) Know that far more people are dying today from other sources than from climate, and that reducing some of the deaths and suffering of people TODAY is achieved using some of those fossil fuels people like you want eliminated or made too expensive because YOU claim it will save some future persons from some imagined future horror.
(c) WE actually believe a pet theory should be PROVEN before we implement policies that have a negative impact on the lives of millions of people in the name of "solving" the supposed problem. In fact, we'd like to not only see the problem PROVEN to exist, but we also want to see that the proposed solution will actually work, will be the most cost-effective option, and will have the least impact upon the lives and liberty of the people who are alive today.