What on Earth is going on in the world today? It's gone mad

[mrzz]

Honestly, the impact of disinformation by Big Oil cannot be ignored.

Holding Major Fossil Fuel Companies Accountable for Nearly 40 Years of Climate Deception and Harm

Exxon Knew about Climate Change almost 40 years ago

ExxonMobil climate change controversy

Yes, of course the Earth has gone through cycles of heating and cooling before, but the data show what has happened in the last century is different, with a clear correlation between the rise of the Industrial Age and rising temperatures.

Like @Moxie, I don’t see where anyone other than Big Oil is going to profit from this. If there were other companies with the money and power of an ExxonMobil-type corporation, which would profit from climate change, I would get the back and forth argument, with two financial titans facing off. But that’s not the case. What we do know is that Big Oil has spent tens of millions of dollars funding projects to spread disinformation, in order to keep doubt as their currency. It reminds me of the saying that the answer to nine out of 10 questions is money, which @mrzz also noted.

As far as young activists are concerned, I don’t see where there’s a problem here. Greta Thunberg is one person. It’s not like there are hundreds or thousands like her. If anything, she’s aberrant. If any of you read the article I linked to previously concerning her background, you would know she has Asperger syndrome. This makes her even more understandable. I have a nephew with Aspergers, and have seen firsthand how they can focus on one thing to a remarkable degree. It’s not unrealistic that someone like her could know a lot about this. She’s been focused on climate change for about seven years. That’s a long time, especially with information-devouring facet of Aspergers.

If some think she’s too young, then when would she be old enough? In one more year? Two years? Three years? Four years? Because if she’s too young, that implies there will be a moment when she shifts to being old enough. Who determines when she’s old enough? Or is it only when her views align with yours that she’s old enough?

The Parkland students are completely understandable, given what they went through. Any of us could have been like them had we survived a school shooting, and I don’t think they should be ignored or told to stay at home because of their age. They know the horror of watching friends get shot, or hiding in closets, hoping they won’t be killed. That they now want to do everything they can to influence gun control and spare others from going through this is not only understandable, it’s showing a level of concern few people ever show.

I don't dispute GT's right to be an activist, and there is no minimal age to do that. I am only saying that it is obvious that she is been used. What is the most likely scenario:

a) Young child, completely by herself, organize protests and demonstrations and the world stops to listen in a snowball effect that leads to her appearance in all the media outlets and the UN.

b) Big companies and political interests that possess world wide media companies, decide they want a poster child and pick her for that.

a) is what happens in movies, b) is what happens in the real world. About her background, thanks for putting the link there but I deliberately did not read it. I am trying not to make it personal even if I obviously dislike the poor little girl. Your point about Aspergers is a good one, but it is way more likely that she consumed lots of journalistic pieces about global warming -- a lot of information, yes -- rather than got herself a solid formation in climate sciences, which is ultimately what is needed to actually understand what is going on. So I completely believe she might be better informed than most people and even journalists, and completely don't believe that she has a technical understanding close to some one from climate sciences or even from neighboring fields (which is my case).

Just to reinforce, I surely agree and believe that the "old" energy sector has spent a lot of money trying to dismiss any research leading to findings that are against their interest. I just called attention that this is not a fight between purely economic interests versus some conscious guided eco-activists. It is money x money from the start (obviously with some conscience guided people scattered in between). That is the way the world spins for ages. Trying to say that this discussion is science vs political interest -- which a lot of people do and is the core of GT's UN speech, is a complete falsehood.

If actual scientists were calling the shots, the politics about energy and emissions would be quite different from ANY of the ones proposed (and, ok, I admit that they would be slightly closer to what the "new" industry proposes than from what the "old" industry wants to keep). Everybody just assumes that electric scooters are a wonderful thing, nobody asks about how much it cost for the environment the whole production cycle of it.

 

[Moxie]

I give you historical facts, I talk about Galileo, I talk about the history of eugenics, I talk about earth's rotation and it's effects, I give you a list of hurricanes since early 18 hundreds , I explain about Greenland's past and yet you are saying I do not believe in science. I am saying YOU do not. You are into emotions, I am into facts. Maybe science means different things to different people. I don't care about emotions.

I don't think I'm being the emotional one in this discussion. That's been Mrzz, and you, a bit, tbh. I respect that you do your reading, but why so pissed off that kids are activists in this world? Please don't say that I'm being "emotional," and tell me that you are the one who cares about or knows about science.

 

[Vince Evert]

I don't dispute GT's right to be an activist, and there is no minimal age to do that. I am only saying that it is obvious that she is been used. What is the most likely scenario:



b) Big companies and political interests that possess world wide media companies, decide they want a poster child and pick her for that.
.

Why on earth would big companies - generally the worst polluters - want a 'poster child' for environmental issues? They would much rather she, and the problem, disappeared.

 

[mrzz]

Why on earth would big companies - generally the worst polluters - want a 'poster child' for environmental issues? They would much rather she, and the problem, disappeared.

(short answer, as I have no time, off to work): There are not only oil and coal companies in the world.

 

[Murat Baslamisli]

I don't think I'm being the emotional one in this discussion. That's been Mrzz, and you, a bit, tbh. I respect that you do your reading, but why so pissed off that kids are activists in this world? Please don't say that I'm being "emotional," and tell me that you are the one who cares about or knows about science.

Let's not worry about the rest and talk about this kid thing. First, I was a kid...I am sure you were too at some point. Please tell me what you knew, or what you thought you knew when you were a young teen? Me, I knew EVERYTHING. It took me decades to realise I actually knew nothing. Putting a kid's face on any serious complicated multi faceted issue just does not pass the smell test. Number one, she actually does not understand the issue at hand beyond what she is told , or has an extremely superficial idea about it. Do you seriously think she can argue this issue with someone on the other side?
Second , it is meant to demonize others because how dare you disagree with an innocent child? It is not too different than using images of a dying polar bear or similar. You are basically saying, how can you argue with that. That is a tactic used by everyone when you do not want to discuss any serious issue because you have nothing. How many other policy issues do you ask 16 year olds Moxie? Why do you think voting age is 18? Why do you think you have to be over 25 to be elected to Congress, 30 for the Senate, 35 to be the Pres minimum? This is child exploitation ! I have watched countless Youtube videos from credible scientists agreeing with the current climate crisis and I have watched countless credible scientists that do not. At no point I feel "triggered" , listening to experts in their fields. When you use a child as your shield though, I get upset.
But I am not the only one who thinks this way. Do you remember the left going apeshit crazy when they saw the picture of that kid from Covington Catholic High School? My facebook feed that day was full of remarks from my liberal friends, such as" I would like to punch that smirk of that kid's face" to " I wish he was aborted"...because these kids were pro life and Trump supporters so the left saw nothing wrong with punching or killing this child ! Talk about double standard. By the way, it later turned out the kids did nothing wrong. Me, I do not have double standards on this issue. I did not like those kids being there for that issue either. They were there for the same reason the girl was there. To incite certain emotions . I don;t care for emotions. Just give me facts, from experts. Sure they are wrong a lot of the times too but they at least know what they are talking about.

When I was 5 years old, some of the older kids in the neighborhood would give me pop and candy if I went and said "fuck you" or something like that to certain tough guys , guys that they would never have the guts to swear at themselves. I would go and say "fuck you" to this guy, he would turn red, chase me a little bit but at the end do nothing because I was just a child, I did not know what I was saying and it was obvious others put me to it. The Coke never tasted better though.

 

[Chris Koziarz]

I don't dispute GT's right to be an activist, and there is no minimal age to do that. I am only saying that it is obvious that she is been used. What is the most likely scenario:

a) Young child, completely by herself, organize protests and demonstrations and the world stops to listen in a snowball effect that leads to her appearance in all the media outlets and the UN.

b) Big companies and political interests that possess world wide media companies, decide they want a poster child and pick her for that.

a) is what happens in movies, b) is what happens in the real world. About her background, thanks for putting the link there but I deliberately did not read it. I am trying not to make it personal even if I obviously dislike the poor little girl. Your point about Aspergers is a good one, but it is way more likely that she consumed lots of journalistic pieces about global warming -- a lot of information, yes -- rather than got herself a solid formation in climate sciences, which is ultimately what is needed to actually understand what is going on. So I completely believe she might be better informed than most people and even journalists, and completely don't believe that she has a technical understanding close to some one from climate sciences or even from neighboring fields (which is my case).

Just to reinforce, I surely agree and believe that the "old" energy sector has spent a lot of money trying to dismiss any research leading to findings that are against their interest. I just called attention that this is not a fight between purely economic interests versus some conscious guided eco-activists. It is money x money from the start (obviously with some conscience guided people scattered in between). That is the way the world spins for ages. Trying to say that this discussion is science vs political interest -- which a lot of people do and is the core of GT's UN speech, is a complete falsehood.

If actual scientists were calling the shots, the politics about energy and emissions would be quite different from ANY of the ones proposed (and, ok, I admit that they would be slightly closer to what the "new" industry proposes than from what the "old" industry wants to keep). Everybody just assumes that electric scooters are a wonderful thing, nobody asks about how much it cost for the environment the whole production cycle of it.

I just got time to pitch in this discussion this morning (my time) sorry for being late.
I will not try to explain (i.e. provide evidence) to those who believe AGW is not real (it is, and is very dangerous, deadly for future generations if not tackled) or that this science is like a "religion" (it is not and all my friends in this field are very level-headed people, and most of them are atheists like myself). I've debunked myths about CS in the past so many times that I'm sick of them now. There is no discussion here anymore.
The discussion is how to mitigate AGW (what was really your intention here) and not a re-debunking of climate conspiracy theories. In particular, if an emotional plea of youngsters like GT is the right strategy. I think it is as I'm trying to justify below.
Let me re-iterate what I already said that AGW is an inter-generational social problem. In a nutshell, AGW is similar to a typical "tragedy of the commons" problem (as much as I don't like that term, it stuck to our minds so we have to use it). But AGW is unique in a sense that it's truly global on a scale bigger than any past ToC problem. Moreover, it spans different/bigger dimensions than examples of past ToC problems: the players are the nations (rather than individuals). For example Saudi Arabia, with their vast oil reserves and Australia/US with their vast coal reserves will have different opinions about "keeping FF in the ground" than other nations whose current economy does not depend on FF. So we have conflict players interest and common interest (of not burning FF and rising CO2) on the national level. Another dimension: this and future generations. Because of delayed T response to a forcing agent (CO2) by about 40-50y (due to dampening effects of the oceans) we live in the climate our grandfathers have prepared for us, while our grandchildren will be living in the world we are preparing for them. Said 40-50y delay is roughly 2 generations. So, the individual interests of our generation conflicts with the interests of future generations.
Now to your main point that GT is (or can be perceived as) no more than a "poster child" of big money interests and not a common interest. First of all, I think you cannot assume that she does not understand what she's talking about or that she does not understand the deepness of the problem I've explained above. People with Asperger (I don't like that term, I prefer to say "with a mild positive shift on autistic spectrum") are usually very smart, smarter than average population, definitely smarter than they appear. Given the rumours that she be on the positive side of said spectrum, IMO she is very unlikely to listen to any "sponsors with money", she'd prefer to do everything on her own. She's also very uncomfortable to be "on the spotlight". That's why she has to read the facts from the paper, not because she does not know what she's talking about. If other people perceive it differently, it's too bad, I cannot help it, I can only hope they read this and ponder. But regardless of her performance; if she, a youngster without knowledge/experience (who age-wise could be your/my daughter) sounds bad/inefficient in this debate, how do her (yet unborn) children do sound now? As I said, AGW env effects play out fully 2 generations down the line, so this is a conflict of interest between us and her children who cannot speak now. They can only cry (if some of them are babies now) and we have to give them a break: emotions are the only way they can communicate to us. GT has a mix of knowledge and emotions, because experience-wise she's roughly in the middle. In general, when we talk and argue our cases, we use a mix of emotions & reason, because human brain (recipient brain also) needs both to assimilate information. So, emotions are needed in order to convey any message between people, without them, we would be just like computers: worthless. IMO, GT's emotions on display here are very worthy, given the proven fact how urgent AGW mitigation is.
Finally, GT does not claim to have a solution to a complex social problem here. She's just an emotional player stating the interests of her and future generations in this game. And she also hints that she understands the ToC that she does not want to take the brunt on resolving the problem on her back. Like all activists do.

 

[Moxie]

Let's not worry about the rest and talk about this kid thing. First, I was a kid...I am sure you were too at some point. Please tell me what you knew, or what you thought you knew when you were a young teen? Me, I knew EVERYTHING. It took me decades to realise I actually knew nothing. Putting a kid's face on any serious complicated multi faceted issue just does not pass the smell test. Number one, she actually does not understand the issue at hand beyond what she is told , or has an extremely superficial idea about it. Do you seriously think she can argue this issue with someone on the other side?
Second , it is meant to demonize others because how dare you disagree with an innocent child? It is not too different than using images of a dying polar bear or similar. You are basically saying, how can you argue with that. That is a tactic used by everyone when you do not want to discuss any serious issue because you have nothing. How many other policy issues do you ask 16 year olds Moxie? Why do you think voting age is 18? Why do you think you have to be over 25 to be elected to Congress, 30 for the Senate, 35 to be the Pres minimum? This is child exploitation ! I have watched countless Youtube videos from credible scientists agreeing with the current climate crisis and I have watched countless credible scientists that do not. At no point I feel "triggered" , listening to experts in their fields. When you use a child as your shield though, I get upset.
But I am not the only one who thinks this way. Do you remember the left going apeshit crazy when they saw the picture of that kid from Covington Catholic High School? My facebook feed that day was full of remarks from my liberal friends, such as" I would like to punch that smirk of that kid's face" to " I wish he was aborted"...because these kids were pro life and Trump supporters so the left saw nothing wrong with punching or killing this child ! Talk about double standard. By the way, it later turned out the kids did nothing wrong. Me, I do not have double standards on this issue. I did not like those kids being there for that issue either. They were there for the same reason the girl was there. To incite certain emotions . I don;t care for emotions. Just give me facts, from experts. Sure they are wrong a lot of the times too but they at least know what they are talking about.

When I was 5 years old, some of the older kids in the neighborhood would give me pop and candy if I went and said "fuck you" or something like that to certain tough guys , guys that they would never have the guts to swear at themselves. I would go and say "fuck you" to this guy, he would turn red, chase me a little bit but at the end do nothing because I was just a child, I did not know what I was saying and it was obvious others put me to it. The Coke never tasted better though.

Well, that was a pretty emotional response. And I was only looking for an apology.

 

[Chris Koziarz]

I don't think I'm being the emotional one in this discussion. That's been Mrzz, and you, a bit, tbh. I respect that you do your reading, but why so pissed off that kids are activists in this world? Please don't say that I'm being "emotional," and tell me that you are the one who cares about or knows about science.

Indeed, you are least "emotional" among active discussants on AGW mitigation herein. Also tented is. Also berg. Sorry, I cannot name everyone here. Thank you all for your valuable input into the subject.

 

[tented]

It's funny I was looking at some beach front property. A dream place. But to my mind it's a bad bad long term investment now. I would suggest that the other folks likely to benefit are the ones whose property will be the new beachfront property. And I mean that only half in jest...

The Oceans We Know Won’t Survive Climate Change

 

[tented]

I don't dispute GT's right to be an activist, and there is no minimal age to do that. I am only saying that it is obvious that she is been used. What is the most likely scenario:

a) Young child, completely by herself, organize protests and demonstrations and the world stops to listen in a snowball effect that leads to her appearance in all the media outlets and the UN.

b) Big companies and political interests that possess world wide media companies, decide they want a poster child and pick her for that.

a) is what happens in movies, b) is what happens in the real world. About her background, thanks for putting the link there but I deliberately did not read it. I am trying not to make it personal even if I obviously dislike the poor little girl. Your point about Aspergers is a good one, but it is way more likely that she consumed lots of journalistic pieces about global warming -- a lot of information, yes -- rather than got herself a solid formation in climate sciences, which is ultimately what is needed to actually understand what is going on. So I completely believe she might be better informed than most people and even journalists, and completely don't believe that she has a technical understanding close to some one from climate sciences or even from neighboring fields (which is my case).

How do you justify not reading about her because you don’t want to make it personal, yet project onto her numerous theories and fantasies about who and what she really is? Why wouldn’t you take the time to learn more about her, especially since you’ve had such an emotional response to her?

 

[brokenshoelace]

But I am not the only one who thinks this way. Do you remember the left going apeshit crazy when they saw the picture of that kid from Covington Catholic High School? My facebook feed that day was full of remarks from my liberal friends, such as" I would like to punch that smirk of that kid's face" to " I wish he was aborted"...because these kids were pro life and Trump supporters so the left saw nothing wrong with punching or killing this child ! Talk about double standard.
.

One kid was a racist, the other wants to save the world (regardless of her knowledge and command of the topic she's discussing). Hardly the same thing.

 

[Chris Koziarz]

The Oceans We Know Won’t Survive Climate Change

Yes, sadly correct facts are stated in this article. Yet, the fellows who buy the beachfront (or "next to beachfront") properties berg is talking about, don't care about life in the ocean at their feet. They only do care about the value of their investment. And he's seriously right: the civilisation (hence the context of the wealth of "next to beach" investors) will still be thriving towards the end of 21 century (60-70y from now), while likely SLR of 1-2 m will "wipe-out" their neighbours obstructing the esteemed boundary. If not literally, the wipe-out will happen virtually due to unavoidable insurance rate rises & tightening regulations. Of course they (or rather their yet unborn grand-children) are next in line to go under water. But they don't care about someone who hasn't been born yet (no one usually does).

 

[mrzz]

How do you justify not reading about her because you don’t want to make it personal, yet project onto her numerous theories and fantasies about who and what she really is? Why wouldn’t you take the time to learn more about her, especially since you’ve had such an emotional response to her?

It is exactly the opposite. I had an (overly) "emotional" response to her, as I openly admitted that she annoys me, but still I analyzed her arguments as rationally as possible -- (including posting her speech and inserting comments). I projected ZERO fantasies and theories about her, as part of the point I am trying to make is that this is not about her, is about the way she is used by others. If she is nice, if she is smart, or the opposite, it is completely irrelevant to the argument and I tried to separate it from the start. On the other hand, all posters who agree with the content of her speech and with the fact that she has such a big voice in such a big matter, that are pushing back her personal side to the conversation.

I can, following on a point Chris raised to which I already answered, calmly admit she is a smart kid, which does not change the fact that I know she is not an expert in the field. Actually, the more I revisit the speech, the more amateur it sounds for me -- leaving extremely clear to me that science is not very high on the priority list of her "puppet masters" (to use your expression).

 

[Murat Baslamisli]

One kid was a racist, the other wants to save the world (regardless of her knowledge and command of the topic she's discussing). Hardly the same thing.

Have you followed up on that story after that very first picture and video? It turned out that kid did absolutely nothing wrong or racist. That came out in court when people watched the full video. In fact he was helping to cool the situation down. He later sued Washington Post for defemation but lost the case not because he was in the wrong, but the judge decided the Post's right to report as they saw fit was more important. If you equate a maga hat with racism, I cannot help you there but let's assume for for a minute the kid IS a huge asshole and a racist. When that first picture came out, people that had zero knowledge about what happened got triggered so bad that they wanted him dead ! When it came out that the kid did nothing wrong, those people were silent. So my point was, people trying to defend Greta should also look at themselves. Idiocy is not only limited to one side.

 

[mrzz]

For example Saudi Arabia, with their vast oil reserves and Australia/US with their vast coal reserves will have different opinions about "keeping FF in the ground" than other nations whose current economy does not depend on FF.

Exactly. That's why the US, regardless of the party in power, had mostly stood out, or blocked, or postponed participation in all climate agreements. Trump dramatically changed the rhetoric -- given his legendary ignorance -- but apart from some diplomatic truculence the tangible attitudes are not that different. This highlights how utterly political that discussion became. One of the points I want to make is that once it becomes political (in the worst sense), scientific aspects and honest concerns become a distant second.

First of all, I think you cannot assume that she does not understand what she's talking about or that she does not understand the deepness of the problem I've explained above. People with Asperger (I don't like that term, I prefer to say "with a mild positive shift on autistic spectrum") are usually very smart, smarter than average population, definitely smarter than they appear. Given the rumours that she be on the positive side of said spectrum, IMO she is very unlikely to listen to any "sponsors with money", she'd prefer to do everything on her own.

First of all, as I wrote in my answer to Tented, what GT is or not is secondary. Again as I wrote above, I think I can quite safely assume that she does not know more than superficially the problem at hand. Her lack of scientific training (given age) is obvious, and if you put her speech under scrutiny, it becomes quite apparent. This does not mean that she is not "smart". That she has sponsors is an observational fact. It costs money to travel the world (occasionally in a yacht), it takes connections to be invited to speak in multiple venues and to have her words on the media around the world. There is absolutely no minimally logic alternative explanation to those facts other than "sponsors". About the autistic spectrum, if that is true than she is expected to have difficulties to interact and read/evaluate other people's intentions, actually becoming easier to manipulate by anyone who knows her condition.

Anyway I don't blame her for being emotional, I blame adults for trying to draw an emotional response from others using those emotions. I really don't agree with that, but this is matter for a longer debate.

 

[brokenshoelace]

Have you followed up on that story after that very first picture and video? It turned out that kid did absolutely nothing wrong or racist. That came out in court when people watched the full video. In fact he was helping to cool the situation down. He later sued Washington Post for defemation but lost the case not because he was in the wrong, but the judge decided the Post's right to report as they saw fit was more important. If you equate a maga hat with racism, I cannot help you there but let's assume for for a minute the kid IS a huge asshole and a racist. When that first picture came out, people that had zero knowledge about what happened got triggered so bad that they wanted him dead ! When it came out that the kid did nothing wrong, those people were silent. So my point was, people trying to defend Greta should also look at themselves. Idiocy is not only limited to one side.

The lawsuit was dismissed and the kid’s account was disputed. Trying to cool the situation down was his claim, except the man on the receiving end didn’t see it that way.

 

[tented]

It is exactly the opposite. I had an (overly) "emotional" response to her, as I openly admitted that she annoys me, but still I analyzed her arguments as rationally as possible -- (including posting her speech and inserting comments). I projected ZERO fantasies and theories about her, as part of the point I am trying to make is that this is not about her, is about the way she is used by others. If she is nice, if she is smart, or the opposite, it is completely irrelevant to the argument and I tried to separate it from the start. On the other hand, all posters who agree with the content of her speech and with the fact that she has such a big voice in such a big matter, that are pushing back her personal side to the conversation.

I can, following on a point Chris raised to which I already answered, calmly admit she is a smart kid, which does not change the fact that I know she is not an expert in the field. Actually, the more I revisit the speech, the more amateur it sounds for me -- leaving extremely clear to me that science is not very high on the priority list of her "puppet masters" (to use your expression).

“Puppet masters” was first used by you here.

I still think it’s worth reading more about her background, in order to get a more clear and accurate picture of her.

Also, I wouldn’t focus too much on the UN speech as a reflection of the depth of her knowledge. Clearly she was given a limited amount of time, and could only do so much.

 

[britbox]

I've generally regarded American foreign policy as a bigger threat to human life than Climate Change. Just saying...

 

[Murat Baslamisli]

*This climate debate can go on forever. It will come down to which science you will choose to believe. Scientists like Richard Lindzen of MIT or Ivar Giaever (even though he is a Nobel winning physicist, not a climatologist)) make way more sense to me than Bill Nye the science guy ( who is not a scientist)

*I think the alarmists are giving human beings too much power and the nature not enough credit but that's just me. I am of the believe that long after humans are gone from this planet, she will be merrily going around the sun until such time that sun runs out of energy.

*I have always wondered , in the roughly 4.5 billion years of history, why the temperature and the CO2 levels of TODAY are the ones that is worth preserving? I mean, both have been higher, lower or equal before. Is it because we are here now? Could it be our arrogance? Just wondering out loud...

*Here is a question for the alarmists, and this is a serious one: Can you think of any positives that can come from the climate crisis as you see it? Just think about it.

*Folks that have been asking about who profits from climate change alarmism? Uhm, have you heard of Crabon Tax ? Come check it out how it works in Canada. I cringe every time I buy gas.

 

[tented]

*This climate debate can go on forever. It will come down to which science you will choose to believe. Scientists like Richard Lindzen of MIT or Ivar Giaever (even though he is a Nobel winning physicist, not a climatologist)) make way more sense to me than Bill Nye the science guy ( who is not a scientist)

You shouldn’t be using Bill Nye as the source of information.

I think the alarmists are giving human beings too much power and the nature not enough credit but that's just me. I am of the believe that long after humans are gone from this planet, she will be merrily going around the sun until such time that sun runs out of energy.

Yes, of course the earth will keep going around the sun until the sun runs out of energy. That’s never been in dispute.

I have always wondered , in the roughly 4.5 billion years of history, why the temperature and the CO2 levels of TODAY are the ones that is worth preserving? I mean, both have been higher, lower or equal before. Is it because we are here now? Could it be our arrogance? Just wondering out loud...

The levels of today are worth preserving because they’re the ones which led to the existence of life as we know it. We could not have survived under other conditions, which wouldn’t have been compatible with our biology. The point of stopping the CO2 levels of growing so high is to retain conditions suitable to our existence, not the planet’s.

Here is a question for the alarmists, and this is a serious one: Can you think of any positives that can come from the climate crisis as you see it? Just think about it.

I’m not quite sure what you mean here. Why is finding positives even relevant? When my house is burning down, hence a crisis, I’m not looking for positives.