On Saturday, June 1, 2019 at 12:43:39 PM UTC-7, Hägar wrote:

If you follow the Equator around the Earth, you'll find more Rain Forests
than anything else. There are areas very densely populated by an abundance
of vegetation, matched nowhere else on Earth and the majority of the Global
animal species have taken up residence there. The heat hovers above 100F
and the humidity will make it difficult to breathe for native residents from
above or below the Tropics of Cancer or Capricorn. These Rain Forests
flourish in Equador, Southern Columbia Northern Peru and in most of Brazil,
despite man's concerted effort to clearcut all the trees. In Africa they
can be found in Gabon, the Congo and Uganda and Kenya. Also the islands of
Indonesia, Malaysia, Brunei et al are covered in Rain Forests.

So, how again is a computer modeled rise in World temperature by say, 5
degrees, detrimental to us ?? the Rain forests would spread North and South,
the wild life numbers would increase and people would sweat more ... your
turn, Palsing ... shovel some more of your usual bull****.

What you say, on the surface, seems perfectly logical, and there was a time when I was right there with you. I'm no climate scientist and I personally have no answer for you from personal experience, but that doesn't mean that your scenario can't be addressed by others who are more knowledgable than either of us.
Read these, for example...

https://skepticalscience.com/few-deg...al-warming.htm

https://www.climaterealityproject.or...degrees-warmer

Here are a whole lot of responses...

https://tinyurl.com/y5d25t8b

So for me, the question becomes "how do we know who to believe about all of this?" I can only speak for myself, and I simply do not think that the world's population is being bamboozled and lied to by a few well-placed people who will be getting rich because of this. I think that the scientific community as a whole is honest and that the way the Scientific Method works keeps them honest. That does not mean that they are always correct but it does mean that they are *probably* mostly correct, even if their timing might be suspect. Plus, the vast majority of climate scientists mostly agree that climate change is real and has negative long-term effects for most of the world's populations.

As always, it is all about the data and the evidence, and I see a whole lot from the one side and very little from the other side that can't be refuted. Whether you believe me or not, I'm a really big skeptic about most claims and always do a lot of due diligence before making any statements of my own. That is why I'm always asking for evidence and why I always provide evidence to support my own position. It is always evidence that changes my mind (and I've changed my mind often over the years) and I'm convinced that this whole climate change issue is real and mostly accurate. I would agree that the early climate change models left a lot to be desired, but the newer models are getting better and better with the passage of time, but no, they are nowhere near perfect right now...

The bottom line, in my view, is that there are just too many people on this Earth, and the population is increasing at an alarming rate, mostly by people who can least afford a big family to begin with... but I have no answer to this perceived problem and I see no answer proposed by anyone that I would trust...