palsing wrote:
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...





Simple answers to "overpopulation" ........CONDOMS, and ABSTINENCE.
See,.....that's not so hard.

As for "climate change"
All the "evidence" is wrong. Man has bugger-all to do with it. It has been
happening since the earth was created. And will happen long after MANKIND
has died off.
A simple look at plate tectonics and continental drift will prove that.
That COAL and OIL that came from plants and animals, are found in areas
that are now colder than sin and covered in ice.