You would be probably well served by linking to scientific data and publications when dismissing something so blithely.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eemian
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5f/All_pala...
The data is not fake. ps: weather is not political.
EDIT: If you find this post to be of interest to you, please upvote. There are many people which disagree with the information I posted without posting a retort. How can we function as a healthy society without the willingness to question what we are told. Must we have sacred cows?
Three reasons:
1) The strength of industrial and energy lobbyists, for whom climate change would mean stronger environmental regulations, which would interfere with their profitability.
2) Environmentalism (and by extension climate change, FKA "global warming") is traditionally seen as "left-wing," associated with effete liberals, tree-hugging hippies and feminism, which automatically causes the right wing to oppose it on principle.
3) Conservative Christians believe that God gave the world to humans to dominate and conquer, and climate change challenges their assumptions about the world and humanity's place in it.
There's the genuine concern that the solutions being proposed will squander our lead over our competitors, by basically redistributing wealth from developed to developing economies[1], and that the people most loudly clamoring for action also tend to be the most opposed to solutions like nuclear power, that would allow us to cut emissions without sacrificing our self-interest as much or at all.
Also, you talk about the profitability of companies as if it is isolated from the prosperity of ordinary people. It's not. And higher energy prices wouldn't just affect a few companies, but just about every single industry.
Environmental activists aren't helping their case when they engage in behavior and lifestyle choices perceived as whacky, and worse, try to impose them on others. People aren't going to abandon the comforts of modernity, so trying to persuade them to isn't a good strategy.
[1] For example, the theory of deals like Kyoto and Paris is that developing economies can keep increasing emissions while developed ones have to immediately cut. Fair, but fairness between countries is naive. The US should do whatever it can to maintain and grow its lead over China.
I dislike broccoli therefore people saying we should eat fruit and veg are liars?
Understanding and engaging with the underlying motivations of the opinion leaders is going to be more effective than just demonizing or ridiculing the people who follow them.
> Eschew flamebait. Don't introduce flamewar topics unless you have something genuinely new to say. Avoid unrelated controversies and generic tangents.
This whole framing is part of the problem, because it implies things like "if Bangladesh is going to be flooded by climate change, this is actually good for the US garment industry"
> whatever it can
How many deaths?
> There is absolutely no evidence that humans are having any impact on the climate whatsoever.
Starting off real strong. Maybe climate scientists themselves don't exist either.
> In order to establish an actual human impact in a statistically significant way, you must show a modern trend that deviates from a baseline of appropriate duration.
Pick a site, any site. This one's good:
> As the Earth moved out of ice ages over the past million years, the global temperature rose a total of 4 to 7 degrees Celsius over about 5,000 years. In the past century alone, the temperature has climbed 0.7 degrees Celsius, roughly ten times faster than the average rate of ice-age-recovery warming.
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/GlobalWarming/pag...
> Not only are we not in a period of "record high temperatures", we are in one of the coldest periods in the past 65 million years.
Which means... what, exactly? We are experiencing record high temperatures within recent history, and that's what matters to our survival. We are not equipped to deal with the speed of the change that is happening.
> The earth had had ice caps for maybe about half of the time over the past 500 million years.
Again, so what? We have ice caps now and them melting quickly is problematic for us.
I don't have enough time to address all the nonsense 4chan can come up with. The rest of it is left as an exercise for the reader.
That being said, there are no sacred cows in science. Questioning conclusions is important; however, when the science has been settled by mountains of evidence and there is scientific consensus, continually questioning those conclusions in the absence of new and contradictory data is a waste of time.
You could likewise argue that the earth is flat for all eternity, and "round earthers" wouldn't be holding their conclusions as a sacred cow just because they dismiss your arguments.
Like the earth being round or gravity being real, man-made climate change isn't really a debate.