[simorley]

> You believing or agreeing that climate change is an existential risk to humanity makes no difference to the evidence we have.

It's not me "believing", it's no sane person believes it. What "evidence" are you talking about? If you have evidence, then you should inform the bankers, government officials, business leaders, etc because they aren't planning on the world ending anytime soon.

> If we don’t act

Act? You mean ban 0.00000001% of ads on google?

> a lot of people will die

Not anymore. Google banned 0.00000001% of their ads.

> our supply chains will be severely disrupted (do you think the current chip shortage is serious?)

Honestly, do people bother to think anymore? You are just parroting talking points. Why are you so worried about supply chains if we are all going to be dead?

> and that could cause a partial collapse of our civilisation.

So which is it. The end of humanity

There was a time when I was like you. When I was still in school and watched Al Gore's "documentary".

You went from "existential risk to humanity" to "a lot of people will die" to "supply chains" to "could cause a partial collapse of our civilization". It's almost like you don't know what you are talking about and just parroting nonsense you saw on TV or read on the news.

Climate change happens with or without humans. It will be detrimental to some, beneficial to others. As with all things, it'll have its winners and losers. We will adapt. Whatever the case, life will go on.

Certainly, if we faced existential risk, we wouldn't let google exist and certainly wouldn't allow google's founder to boat around the world and buy up property in new zealand. The world is ending but all the rich people are living the good life. But you have the evidence after all. That's why you jumped from "existential risk" to a possible "partial" collapse of civilization.

[rbanffy]

> There was a time when I was like you.

I seriously doubt it.

[jimmygrapes]

Please keep religious flame wars elsewhere