When the temperature increases the amount of energy stored in the atmosphere increases. That means more extreme weather.
And yet there's no data indicating an increase in extreme weather events. Even the IPCC says so. There's plenty of
predictions of increases in extreme weather, but people predict a lot of stuff a lot of times. Only one outcome can be true.
The main issue with increased extreme weather is that it becomes too unpredictable, and that is bad for food production overall.
Well, yes. But this basically brings me to the point that I've been making all along. Instead of trying to magically stop extreme weather (which simply can't be done) by concentrating on our CO2 emissions we're far better off building the infrastructure that increases our tolerance to those sorts of events. Massive and far reaching de-industrialisation does nothing but guarantee worse outcomes for everyone.
I agree to a certain degree but people have to wake up. Right now the major issue on everyone's mind is the climate. However, that is far from the only issue we face. A Swedish group of scientist have made a list of issues. Each are potentially a threat humanity, called Planetary Boundaries...
So yes "Hyperbole is your enemy", but I honestly do not try that. Instead I try to point out that the situation is far more critical than most people think. Furthermore, there are powerful interests in not doing anything...
Honestly I could do like the rest of my generation and go "Who cares. It's too late anyhow", but then I see a kid and think "It makes me sad to know, that you, with a large certainty, won't live to become old, but instead you will die because of famine".
Yeah, hyperbole. I'm not sure you actually understand why the sort of rhetoric you're spreading is so counter-productive. Read the bits I've quoted. Show me something credible that might have even a vague change of justifying the claim that a child born today in Denmark is going to die of famine.
It's simply an outrageous claim and, unless there's some drastic piece of knowledge that I'm not aware of, utterly without merit - and now colours pretty much anything you say on the topic in my eyes. Think "The Boy Who Cried Wolf".
However, you don't need to do that to get an outline of things to come. Instead you can focus on some of the things we know for sure, and know the interactions of. Like no food, no life...
I hate the idea about "living under a rock", and honestly I personally don't. I'm not sure that it's necessary either, but the way we behave currently is bound to end in tears. Error bars and chaos won't change that. If something will change it, it has to be ourselves.
Unvalidated model outputs mean nothing.
Validated model outputs are potential scenarios bound by the variable inputs, model constraints and margin of error in the model/s. If whatever models you've created are projecting "No food, no life" within a generation - I'd respectfully suggest that they haven't been validated.
I repeat, What would it take to convince you that science is right about the climate and sustainability?
"Science is right about..."? Even asking the question illustrates that you don't understand what science actually is. This is a not very well disguised appeal to authority - a logical fallacy. Science is a process, not an entity.
Do you think this single body known as science has a single, coherent view, opinion and future projection of climate and sustainability? I assure you that it most certainly does not.
