> No need to call me names for providing evidence that supports my opinion that humans aren't doing a damn thing to change the climate for good or bad You chos

> No need to call me names for providing evidence that supports my opinion that humans aren't doing a damn thing to change the climate for good or bad You chose a source to illustrate your point that disagreed with you. It didn't support your opinion. > It is irrational hubris Argument by incredulity. The science doesn't care about whether we think its hubris. > Plants require 150ppm CO2 to survive and grow significantly better in concentrations around 1000ppm Plants do grow better with higher CO2 concentrations - but they also grow much worse with higher heat stress, which counteracts this. Growing crops will become unsustainable in large regions of the tropics. > The argument for human caused climate change and that we must do something about the changing climate is simply unconvincing to me. Based on what? What sources have you read? What makes them unconvincing? > If you are worried about CO2 emissions we are improving on that front by using cleaner fuels like natural gas instead of coal. If we used nuclear we could reduce CO2 emissions even further. That is true, though natural gas is only as partial improvement. Renewables and nuclear are much better solutions.