Nothing that I said disagrees with what you said. I said that climate change is not a scam, which implies that it is real.

Saying that climate change is a circus, a fiasco, and a gravy train, is a statement about the lack of progress, the unrealistic goals, the blaming of the wrong people, the way that certain groups are protesting, the fact that not enough people are actually willing to do much or pay much to combat climate change, the fact that governments that are more right wing are being voted in and they often don't take climate change seriously, the efforts to force people into EV's, the lack of infrastructure to support efforts to fight climate change, the pushing of unreliable renewable energy at the expense of reliable energy based on fossil fuels, etc., etc.

Human life is a circus and you’re the jester.

Oh, so you agree climate change is an existential threat? Or a probable existential threat?

Most of us who see Mikie is a completely unhinged child do agree with this. For my part, i've never suggested otherwise. He's not often wrong, he's just a patently aggressive, disrespectful and emotionally immature person.
Perhaps "existential" is a bit far in my book, but that's due to something other than "the case right now"

Oh, so you agree climate change is an existential threat? — RogueAI

I see climate change as a threat, but not really an existential threat.

I think that there is a lot of exaggeration going on.

Human life is a circus and you’re the jester. — Punshhh

Don't underestimate jesters. Here are some great quotes about jesters:

Jesters do often prove prophets. --- Joseph Addison

Even in the most repressive medieval kingdoms, they understood the need for the court jester, the one soul allowed to tell the truth through laughter. --- Joe Randazzo

The jester is brother to the sage. --- Arthur Koestler

An unemployed jester is nobody's fool. --- Danny Kaye. :rofl:

I see climate change as a threat, but not really an existential threat.

I think that there is a lot of exaggeration going on. — Agree-to-Disagree

If you mean the human species will continue, I tend to agree. I don't see us getting wiped out by climate change. But I think we could lose a big chunk of our population if we don't get our act together. That being said, I feel sorry for the developing countries that are late to the party and want to expand their middle class with cheap fossil fuel powered energy the way the first world countries all did, and now they're being told they can't do that. Well, they're going to go ahead and do it anyway.

Well, they're going to go ahead and do it anyway. — RogueAI

I agree. And the petrostates are unlikely to stop production because their economies depend on it.

Libya (60% GDP)
Qatar (60% GDP)
Saudi Arabia (46% GDP)
Angola (28.9% GDP)
Oman (26.2% GDP)
Algeria (25% GDP)
Venezuela (25% GDP)
Iran (18% GDP)
Chad (17% GDP)
Kazakhstan (17% GDP)
Russia (17% GDP)
United Arab Emirates (15.67% GDP)

He's not often wrong, he's just a patently aggressive, disrespectful and emotionally immature person. — AmadeusD

Only to disingenuous, sanctimonious internet twits. I agree it’s a waste of time — and childish — to lower myself to your level. Can’t help myself. Pretentious pukes should be resisted at every instance — that’s my philosophy.

This turned out prophetic: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/974319

Genuinely worried you're mentally ill. I am not being disingenuous. Your behaviour mirrors my bipolar brother. I will refrain from further comment , leaving this as reasoning for same.

Genuinely worried you're mentally ill. — AmadeusD

Projection. It’s fairly obvious you’re mentally ill, given that you’ve held some kind of a grudge for literally years (even after being ignored for that amount of time), follow me around, slander and insult me unprovoked, and then continue to obsessively respond even after weeks have passed. All the while trying to maintain an air of being above it all, as if you weren’t the psychopath in this scenario. Being in psychology myself, this is very typical. You see it with most narcissists and sociopaths.

I’ve alerted the moderators already to your behavior.

Anyway- I can see now why I would have put you on the ignore extension, especially given that your other “contributions” are fatuous and remind me of someone who pretends to know it all because they recently took an undergraduate philosophy class.

er. I will refrain from further comment — AmadeusD

Yeah yeah … we all believe that I’m sure. :wink:

Scientific article: phys.org from March 11, 2025
Permian mass extinction linked to 10°C global temperature rise that reshaped Earth's ecosystems
https://phys.org/news/2025-03-permian-mass-extinction-linked-10c.html

Great Wikipedia information on "Extinction Events":
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extinction_event

Great Wikipedia information on "Permian-Triassic Mass Extinction Event'":
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permian%E2%80%93Triassic_extinction_event

Recent article from LiveScience:
Ancient Egyptian city of Alexandria — the birthplace of Cleopatra — is crumbling into the sea at an unprecedented rate: By Jess Thomson published March 4, 2025
Key point: Coastal erosion from rising sea levels has led to the collapse of 280 buildings across Alexandria, Egypt, over the past two decades.
https://www.livescience.com/planet-earth/climate-change/ancient-egyptian-city-of-alexandria-the-birthplace-of-cleopatra-is-crumbling-into-the-sea-at-an-unprecedented-rate

New peer-reviewed paper in AGUPubs:
Soaring Building Collapses in Southern Mediterranean Coasts: Hydroclimatic Drivers & Adaptive Landscape Mitigations
First published: 12 February 2025
Link: https://doi.org/10.1029/2024EF004883

Parts of San Francisco and Los Angeles are sinking into the sea — meaning sea-level rise will be even worse: By Patrick Pester published February 13, 2025
Key points: A study led by NASA and NOAA has found that California is sinking in some areas, which means the projected sea level rise for parts of Los Angeles and San Francisco has doubled.
https://www.livescience.com/planet-earth/parts-of-san-francisco-and-los-angeles-are-sinking-into-the-sea-meaning-sea-level-rise-will-be-even-worse

Link: https://www.science.org/doi/pdf/10.1126/sciadv.ads8163

I watched this video and I couldn't stop laughing when I saw how incredibly unscientific Paul Beckwith is.

Here is the "About Paul Beckwith" from his YouTube channel.

Well known climate system science educator; joining the dots on abrupt climate change. Occasional part-time professor (sessional/contract instructor) in Geography (on climatology, oceanography, environmental issues) at University of Ottawa. Physicist. Engineer. Master's Degree in Science in Laser Optics, Bachelors of Engineering, in Engineering Physics. Won Association of Professional Engineers of Ontario gold medal. Also interested in climate solutions, renewable energy and energy efficiency. — Paul Beckwith

These qualifications sound very impressive and you would think that an occasional part-time professor in Geography (on climatology, oceanography, environmental issues) at University of Ottawa would know what he is doing. Instead, what I am about to show you proves that Paul Beckwith is an educated idiot. This makes a nice change from most climate fanatics and alarmists who are uneducated idiots.

In this video Beckwith discusses an article based on a new peer-reviewed paper that just came out recently, which talks about how the Permian mass extinction is now linked to a 10° Celsius global temperature rise which completely reshaped the Earth's ecosystems on both the land and in the ocean. The mass extinction was caused by huge volcanoes erupting and releasing 100,000 billion metric tons of CO2 into the atmosphere very rapidly.

No problems so far. But then a scientific statement appears in the article about the peer-reviewed paper which isn't alarmist enough for Beckwith. The article says:

This framework can be used to understand tipping behavior in the climate system in response to the present-day CO2 increase. If this increase continues at the same rate, we will reach the level of emissions that caused the Permian-Triassic mass extinction in around 2,700 years—a much faster timescale than the Permian-Triassic Boundary emissions. — phys.org

What is Paul Beckwith's comment about this statement? The transcript for the video shows Paul Beckwith's commentary. He says:

[...] it lets us understand tipping behavior today in the climate system in response to present day CO2 increases and it says uh you know it it says if the increase continues at the same rate we'd reach the level of emissions that caused the KT mass extinction it would take thousands of years but you know this is assuming this is not accounting for tipping point so this is I don't know why this statement is really in there [...] — Paul Beckwith

Firstly he misinterprets what the statement from the article says, even though he just read it out in the video. The article says "This framework can be used to understand tipping behavior in the climate system in response to the present-day CO2 increase.". Paul Beckwith responds with "but you know this is assuming this is not accounting for tipping point". But the article just said (and Paul Beckwith just read out) that the framework can be used to understand tipping behavior in the climate system.

Secondly (and this is even funnier), the fact that it will take about 2,700 years to reach the level of emissions that caused the Permian-Triassic mass extinction doesn't suit Paul Beckwith's agenda. Paul Beckwith wants to create immediate panic and 2,700 years is unlikely to cause immediate panic for many/most people.

So Paul Beckwith says "[...] it would take thousands of years [...] so this is I don't know why this statement is really in there [...]".

Here is a clue Paul Beckwith. The statement is there because the scientists who wrote the paper, and the scientists who peer-reviewed the paper, thought that the statement was revenant and true. If you can't see that then you are an idiot. Real scientists try to avoid putting incorrect statements in their papers.

Real scientists don't want you to ignore what they wrote. If you ignore what the scientists wrote then you are a science denier.

Yes I agree with you, there were some careless comments there. It's a video, not a scientific paper. But then I don't think anyone is suggesting we are heading for 10 degrees of warming any time soon. I have seen 6 suggested but 3 or 4 is more often the figure.

During the Permian extinction there was so much crap in the atmosphere that the partial pressure of O2 went from 35% all the way down to 12%. It's 21% now, and that's what we need to survive. If the PO2 went down to 12% again, most living things on land and in the oceans would die.

A mass extinction is like this: imagine a car that goes through a lot of hardship, but keeps running. Finally a point is reached where a critical component of the engine falters and the whole engine stops. During a mass extinction, there's a fundamental breakdown in the mechanics of the biosphere. This has happened several times. There's one mass extinction where they're still not sure how life survived at all.

I saw this comment in the comments section of a YouTube video.

97% of climate scientists agree that they don't want to be defunded. The science is settled !!!

:rofl: . :rofl: . :rofl:

If the PO2 went down to 12% again, most living things on land and in the oceans would die. — frank

What are the chances of this happening?

Finally a point is reached where a critical component of the engine falters and the whole engine stops. — frank

Are you talking about EV's, and the critical component is the lithium-ion battery?... :grin:

There's one mass extinction where they're still not sure how life survived at all. — frank

Which mass extinction are you referring to?

What is your definition of life? Does it include bacteria and archaea? Does it include ecosystems that are found around hydrothermal vents? These ecosystems support specialised life forms like giant tube worms, clams, mussels, crabs, and certain fish, all adapted to the extreme conditions of the deep ocean, and relying on chemosynthesis for energy.

What is your definition of life? — Agree-to-Disagree

I don't think there is one.

97% of climate scientists agree that they don't want to be defunded. The science is settled !!! — Agree-to-Disagree

Come on, mate. Even this site is funded (by subscribers like you) with donations to keep it free from ads. What in this world can work without funds?

What in this world can work without funds? — javi2541997

You are correct that funding is necessary for most things. But the important question is whether the results of the funding are worth (or likely to be worth) the cost.

There is also the question of whether the funds could have been better used elsewhere.

What is your definition of life?
— Agree-to-Disagree

I don't think there is one. — frank

Okay, I will reword my question to make it easier to answer.

Are bacteria and archaea alive?

Are the organisms that are found around hydrothermal vents alive? The types of organisms that are found around hydrothermal vents include giant tube worms, clams, mussels, crabs, and certain fish.

97% of climate scientists agree that they don't want to be defunded. The science is settled !!!

The science was settled decades before these scientists started work on climate change. After which fossil fuel corporations pumped lots of cash into discrediting it.
This notion of scientists saying whatever will secure their funding is nonsense, conspiracy, populist claptrap.

Okay, I will reword my question to make it easier to answer.

Are bacteria and archaea alive?

Are the organisms that are found around hydrothermal vents alive? The types of organisms that are found around hydrothermal vents include giant tube worms, clams, mussels, crabs, and certain fish. — Agree-to-Disagree

Yes. And?

This notion of scientists saying whatever will secure their funding is nonsense, conspiracy, populist claptrap. — Punshhh

How about the scientists that work for Big Oil, Big Tobacco, Big Meat and Dairy, Big Pharma, Big Ag (Agriculture), Big Food, Big Chemical, etc.

Are they influenced by the organisations that fund them?

During a mass extinction, there's a fundamental breakdown in the mechanics of the biosphere. This has happened several times. There's one mass extinction where they're still not sure how life survived at all. — frank

Yes. And? — frank

I am pointing out that even in a major mass extinction there are still many living things that will survive.

If "they" are still not sure how life survived at all in that mass extinction then it shows that "they" are lacking knowledge and are exaggerating. Unless the whole planet explodes life will continue.

If "they" are still not sure how life survived at all in that mass extinction then it shows that "they" are lacking knowledge and are exaggerating. — Agree-to-Disagree

The riftia or tubeworm appeared 35 million years ago. The mass extinction known as Snowball Earth was 700 million years ago.

You’ve put the cart before the horse. Those concerns fund their scientists to defend market share. The concerns that fund climate change scientists do it to mitigate the risks. Economics does come into it at the next stage, inevitably.

The concerns that fund climate change scientists do it to mitigate the risks. — Punshhh

You say that the concerns that fund climate change scientists do it to mitigate the risks. Doesn't that put pressure on climate change scientists to find and highlight risks? If climate change scientists don't find risks, or find positives about climate change, then they will be defunded. There is pressure to give the concern the results that they want.