UHND.com - Notre Dame Football, Basketball, & Recruiting

Climate Change is changing climate. Always happens, ever since the beginning of the Earth. I assume we agree on that. There is general scientific consensus on that.

Global Warming is climate change that warms the Earth. There can be Global Cooling as well. Climate is cyclical. Most recently, the Earth has been warming naturally since the beginning of the end of the last Ice Age. Man had nothing to do with it. We are near a natural peak, such that if man had never lit a campfire, we still would have seen warming all this time, on average (setting aside dips like the Little Ice Age). I assume we agree on that. There is general scientific consensus on that.

Anthropogenic Global Warming is man-made global warming. I'm sure we agree that mankind is contributing something to global warming, whether minimally, or substantively. That is an easy thing to agree on. We likely disagree on the magnitude, and the potential irreversibility of it.

Beneficial Global Warming is helpful to man. I pointed out that the natural global warming we've seen for the past 18,000 years has been immensely beneficial to humankind. Can you agree that mankind is better off without a mile of ice over Canada, northern US, Europe and Northern Russia? If you can agree with that, then we can talk about what is changing to make it bad in the future. But, if you can't agree it has been good up to this point, then I don't see the point of talking further if you are willing to deny historical fact.

Harmful Global Warming is harmful to man. This is a judgement about the future, not a proven scientific principle. (Climate science is not like predicting the action of a billiard ball on a pool table.) We likely disagree on this aspect, or even if we agree, we likely disagree on solutions which are possible and when those solutions should be implemented, and whether we should be wasting money on Dem & GOP bullshit in the face of this threat.

Imminently Harmful Global Warming (anthropogenic or otherwise) requires immediate action. We likely disagree on whether immediate action is required, what that immediate action should be, and whether immediate action is even possible given current geopolitical realities.

The above is why I don't simply say that it's because of mankind's burning of FFs (99.999% of it has not been due to mankind burning FF) and that needs to be sharply diminished (it will be sharply diminished when we run out of most of it this century...the question is, can we get other nations to stop using it? We cannot. Virtue signaling, like with the Paris Agreement, is harmful, not helpful, since it makes people think change is happening when it is not.