I think your posts are being downvoted because it's just simpler to downvote than try to correct someone with such fundamental errors of fact. Too many people w

I think your posts are being downvoted because it's just simpler to downvote than try to correct someone with such fundamental errors of fact. Too many people who say things similar to you (e.g., pointing to incorrect climate models, questioning the degree of climate change, pointing to "unattainable changes to society" and so on) don't actually want to be corrected; they simply hold onto their beliefs regardless of contrary evidence. This is the difference between "denialism", which leads to futile argumentation, vs. "skepticism", which is a healthy part of science. Engagement with denialists is thus simply a waste of time, fatiguing, and frustrating. I'll throw a few things out there: climate models. Watch this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wJoMp-k_H3w https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wJoMp-k_H3w for a comparison of predictions of major climate models vs. measured temperatures. Many, many articles and peer-reviewed research has covered this. Overfishing being an "environmental problem that we can actually solve": this massively complex problem involves international policing of illegal fishing, national sovereignty, ecological protections vs. starving populations, increasing economic success leading to increasing consumption (see China's insatiable and growing appetite for fish), cultural issues, and on and on. Worse, climate and agricultural impacts such as ocean acidification, temperature rise, algae blooms, and nitrogen run-off all contribute to dramatic declines in aquatic populations that lower yields and require ever-more aggressive fishing practices that further destroy the ecosystem. Regarding the contribution of humans to climate change: there is no doubt that carbon dioxide warms the atmosphere. There is no doubt that CO2's overall contribution to warming exceeds that of other factors (including solar maxima and other denialist theories). There is also no doubt that humans emit more CO2 than any other source. See https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/... for a good overview. Without a science-based rebuttal to these issues, saying human contribution is "not neaarrlly to the degree that alarmists and doom and gloomers would have people believe" is a belief based on nothing. You use strawmen like "too many extremists that claim the apocolypse on very dubious grounds." What does this mean? We have 411 ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere now, and it continues to grow - at an accelerating rate. This leads to stronger and more frequent extreme weather events like droughts (atmospheric warming) and hurricanes (ocean warming). So what is this apocalypse the extremists discuss? Apocalypse like having a city burned to the ground (see California)? Like hurricanes devastating coastal communities (see Bahamas)? Like 500 year weather events occurring almost annually? How many of these must happen before they strain the economies of even the richest countries? And that's not even talking about massive flooding from sea-level rise. Blaming "extreme alarmists" for being "harmful to science" is so disingenuous it makes me angry. You really believe they're more harmful to science than those who lie about, cherry-pick, obfuscate, and bury data (see Exxon) to create the illusion of controversy to protect their trillion dollar businesses or political power? The only reason climate change is polarizing is because their efforts to undermine the science have worked. The only reason you think the solutions are unattainable is because they have convinced you that is so for 40 years. And now, perhaps, they are unattainable. Congrats to them, I guess. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gcr-x-xPPFE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gcr-x-xPPFE