You do understand his point though right? Oil companies *knew* FIFTY years ago this would happen...and hid that info and actively fed propaganda to deny it.

By arguing that, perhaps we should wait and take things slow because it's hard...that's pretty much the same propaganda just dialed back for the current situation. Millions more will die if we *don't* move fast.

So yes, you are, knowingly or not, playing the same role.

So should we not try and figure out how to remove CO2 until we've achieved 100% green power grid? This is an *attempt*. If it works, scale it using green power as available. It's like EV cars. Right *now* they are likely fossil fuel powered. But by switching to EVs, they become green as the grid greens. 2 step parallel tracks to get to the end goal

Removing CO2 from the atmosphere is directly fighting climate change. There are two things. Reducing emissions and CO2 sequestration. This is an attempt at one. You don't wait to put the roof on a house until all the walls are painted. It may not be net zero. Few initial attempts work perfectly. You also don't get to viable without trying things.

yeah both are most definitely needed. The concern by some is that if we were to magically develop robust capture tech that works. A lot of the impetus to reduce actual emissions would get lost.

The next 10 years will be quite telling me thinks. Either we learn the disasters coming are getting worse or we watch them get even worse.

The US Interstate Highway system wasn't commercially viable either. It was built expressly for national defense.

Mitigating climate change is for human civilization defense.

Fair it won't be trillions for one, but for all, quite easily.

Far cheaper to work to prevent it from coming to pass.

Watch this linky

Video from a year ago, not sponsored by them, shows significant urban usage is planned.

Watch and listen video

Redesigned blades basically eliminate the spikey annoying sounds for a low level continuous one that's barely audible.

It's fair to worry that the cheap hobby drones you hear most often represent the commercial tech, but it's also a solvable problem. We should push for regulations to *require* such things to minimize the effects.

Considering you just 180'd your own statement, I'll suggest your opinions on the matter aren't exactly worth considering.

Good day

It was not 'considerably warmer' 10000 years ago. Almost constant +/- 1 C since then till industrialization.

Wet bulb temps are already killing people at little more than 100 degrees.

Yep did miss that. Though I do tend to not prefer additional natural environment contamination so I wouldn't call that exactly a good solution.

Because it costs trillions of dollars to retrofit a city? Vs planning ahead. Miami isn't even subsiding and it's in deep shi, I mean water.

Ounce of prevention vs pound of cure etal.

Desalination has serious drawbacks. If you chuck the resulting brine back into the ocean you create a massive dead zone. And rather than create yet more waste with nuclear, just use solar/wind since created fresh water can be easily stored - the intermittent nature of renewables isn't an issue.

Another factor is an after effect of the ice age ending. All the weight pushed down the northern parts of N American continent. It's still spring back, causing rise in the north...and lowering in the south as the plate tips back

And we should definitely cut canals into the mangroves to facilitate oil rigs ;-) That was a definite positive decision lol