I thought I made my position pretty clear on the last post. When someone is presented with a theory, do you expect them to think it's a thing or not? I don't believe it's a binary option. Effects of global warming aren't even close to consensus even among believers.

I wasn't upset, but was pointing out that there's many things that you believe in that other people don't. I'm not sure what's so hard to understand.

For example, I believe that there's a huge political motivation on the left to believe in global warming that is separate from the science. I'm assuming you disagree. That's fine. You won't change my mind, and I won't change yours.

There is no consensus of agreement, so I'm not sure why you would assume that there would be on HN

I was just thinkng of the butterfly effect. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Butterfly_effect

So the question isn't whether anthropogenic climate change is a thing. The questions are to what extent are the effects? What are the costs and efficacy of combating climate change?