Why call the religion "climate change" when it declares only one ideal climate?

Stop trying to be an e-daddy.

You also forgot option c and d and e dealing with climate temperature drops and status quo.

There isn't any scientific consensus as to exactly what the ideal climate should look like, only that it definitively exists, and humans should do everything in their power to attain it at any cost.

Some are even now saying, "Have no children!"

The cost being extinction.

The Earth does not have an ideal climate.

The Earth has a climate relative to natural environmental activity, which includes human activity and all it's consequences.

The Earth will continue to wend it's thoughtless way around the Sun for as long as it will do, irrespective of what may or may not live upon it's surface.

Though perhaps there is a God watching who will adjust the temperature settings if things get a little too hot for us.

Though I doubt that very much.

Nonetheless the Fauxlaw  argument that because Australia swelters whilst Siberia freezes somehow negates human concerns of climate change, overlooks the simple fact (that I poetically emphasised previously).....The Earth has one climate of variations.

So the permafrost thaws whilst the outback burns....So what? 

Too many people worrying about too many irrelevances and I don't suppose that the coronavirus is going to alleviate the problem much

Just keep stockpiling the toilet paper.

The solution to income inequality and abuse of the poor:

Make everyone of equal temperament in ambition, planning, and execution. That will solve both issues. Good luck.

My post #17, repeated in #36, were on point. My point, as it is my thread.

We're waiting for the IPCC, Working Group III to make its final report, which is in draft form now, but not yet released as per the status report of 1990 that I have cited.

Also, we await IPCC AR6 Climate Change Report of 2021, Mitigation of Climate Change, currently in draft form.

Also see IPCC Scoping Meeting, 2017,https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/09/220520170356-Doc.-2-Chair-Vision-Paper-.pdf

Also see UN SDGs [Sustainable Development Goals], Goal #13 Climate Action https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sustainable_Development_Goals

That is a complete cop-out. If there are merely variations of a single climate, which cannot possibly meet a singular effort of achieving a singular global temperature or a singular global sea level, why does the IPCC insist on global data? The only way that functions at all is if every type of climate has an equal percentage of data volume with every other, and covering an equal percentage of territory as every other. The earth is not a six-slice apple pie, and no one can argue otherwise. If that is not just absurd, then, what is it?

According to the thread title there is an "ideal climate" advocated by some person or group of people.

According to me you have yet to address this point by describing what this supposedly advocated for ideal climate is.

If I am incorrect then you would be able to point out said description.

Pretty simple.

Like a supreme being, I can simply claim it exists.

Consult the Report cited. It's title is sufficient enough to get the idea: "Climate Change: The IPCC Scientific Assessment." "Change" is the operative word, in my assessment. Meaning that, at present, at least, as of the report of 1990, climate conditions, though on an alleged threshold, are sufficient for human existence. Proof: we are still here, and the incident of death among us, not including Covid-19, attributed to climate change, exclusively, has not yet reached the critical stage of inevitability of the change. That threshold is the issue of the claim of the report, which, though a "scientific assessment," has already proven to be faulty, since our rate of change is not the steep slope predicted in 1990. As I said in my post #17, our rate of change is 66% of prediction, in just 30 years. And we are still here.

Shall I spell it out? If our "ideal climate" is defined as the preferred climate able to sustain life on earth, allowing for the fact that extinction of life has occurred throughout the existence of life on earth and is a natural consequence of life on earth, the "ideal climate" is the current climate, or something less than current. How much less? Well, there is a conundrum, because life on earth has been around for an estimated 3.8B years according to https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2015/10/scientists-may-have-found-earliest-evidence-life-earth. However, we have also recognized wild fluctuation in climate over that 3.8B years. As a result, what is "ideal" to IPCC takes the same tactic as many here observe the duration of eternity: a single point of a beginning, and an infinite line in one direction from that point. Take your pick of where that point is relative to climate ideals. That I do not agree with the beginning-of-eternity claim, I make no claim of when the "ideal climate" began. Rather, I choose to say that there is not a single, ideal climate for the entire earth, but that it enjoys many climates; climates that accommodate the "grandeur in this view of life with its several powers..." [Charles Darwin, On the origin of Species]

The whole man made climate change thing is a myth. Objective data backs it up.

No it doesn't. The only research that remotely implies that is funded by people who blatantly want to deny climate change in order to keep extracting oil and whatever else.

<br>

Nope. I am funded by no one. I argue that just the measurement methods to argue climate change to the extent that we are at a threshold from which no return is possible are critically flawed. Just the argument made in the 1990 TPCC report that they predicted a rise in global temperature average of 0.3ºC per decade is already off by 33% in just 3 decades. Not in the report, but a phenomenon I've personally witnessed is the Bay of Fundy in Nova Scotia whose twice-daily tidal change is 56 feet, so, lets not quibble about a "crisis" of tidal changes of a few cm.

The measurement error in the TPCC "data," demonstrating their 33% error is easily pin-pointed. Does anybody take this phenomenon intyo account when making global averages of sea level? No. They do not use the same equipment, nor operators, and I question the calibration readiness of their equipment, and I see no data on the Gage R&R studies that should be available on their equipment. Until they correct just these flaws [and there are others], I take their "data" as opinionated guesses.

Consider this simple example that argues against taking global average measurements, and calling it accurate sufficient to make such predictions and call that "science." Suppose there are only three climates that encompass the earth, a desert, a tropical, and an arctic region. These three each do not exist as a full one-third of the earth, thereby making a global average a consistent measure. If one environment occupies 4/9 of earth, another is 2/9, and the third is 3/9 [or 1/3], you must first take those differences into account, and normalize the data, and then draw a grand average. However, all measurements must be taken by the same type of authentically calibrated equipment, with Gage R&R's demonstrating the accuracy of measurement regardless of the measurement operator, and regardless of their measurement method variations. Only then do you have a prayer of having accurate data. However, if its garbage in, then garbage out, and you have an error rate of 33%, or more or less, as has been demonstrated.

However, the earth has far more climate types than three, and they exist in unequal percentages of earth's surface, which just complicates the matter that much more.

No one pays me to know these facts. No one pays me to distribute these facts.

To claim that there is no anthropogenic cause to change in our climates is as short sighted as claiming it is the only cause. I have no doubt but that we contribute an effect. However, I also argue that we are not yet at a critical tipping point, and I argue that there are, in addition to man, obvious other natural causes and effects. For example, if even we could eliminate all cows, and man, methane would still rise into the atmosphere from rice paddies, and all other cultivated and natural wetlands, rivers, lakes and oceans because ALL living forms, plant and animal, release methane into the atmosphere as a natural consequence of being alive, consuming food, digesting nutrients and expelling waste. If you're alive, you give methane. Period.

Meh, nothing to worry about, man wont completely destroy the world or anything. Be best you that you can be and try not to destroy world.

Do [people of the so-called 'climate change religion'] think any changeemp raise at all is bad because our current climate is 'ideal - no matter at what rate it occurs - or just any temp raise that occurs too rapidly for the biosphere to adapt?

No..... You say that it is a complete cop out.

I could say exactly the same of your argument.

I could say that your obvious concerns manifest as denial.... Denials of the effect and of the cause and of the potential outcomes.

I maintain that The Earth has one climate of variations.....And experts (love them or hate them) tell us that the overall climate is altering significantly as a result of human activity.

Nonetheless....Que sera sera according to Doris.

terrible quality video but great quality content: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6hCRafyV0zI

type less, listen and read more.

I changed the video link, that was terrible quality.

Seeing as how the tendency of TPCC to overshoot their predictions [because the same happened when the predicted excessive change back when alarmists called it "global warming," [they wewre not called TPCC, then] and the result was a cooling trend, hence the change in name of the religion.

Well if they are only worried about changes because they happen too fast for the biosphere to adapt but are fine with change in general then they don't really have an "ideal climate".

As stated in the 1990 TPCC Report: "(ii) formulating realistic response strategies for the

 page iii.

Forming strategies for realistic response for management of the climate means that they have a target climate they want to achieve; the target being something less than the current climate parameters.

What is the issue? Would they think there is an issue if the temp was increasing at 1 degree every 10 million years?

No, I don't think they'd be concerned by your suggested rate of change. But the mere fact that they [I'll point to TPCC] are concerned at all sufficient to effectively launch a 60-year effort [1990 to 2050, the latter being the target date of "Net Zero"] would seem to be the issue based on their predicted a 0.9ºC rise in global temperature average over 3 decades since 1990. Even when faced with a 33% error rate per decade after three decades into their six identified decades of research and response. At that rate, if considered consistent, their 60-year margin of error will be 66% [double the current error].

So they don't have an "ideal climate" (if they did they would not want any change no matter how slow, meaning you would have answered 'yes' to the above instead of 'no').

How is this hard to understand?

Because the conditions of change you proposed, 1º/10M years, is probably not measurable by our current standards. Hell, they can't measure a 3º/10 years change accurately. And, you are correct; they don't want change. That's what "ideal" means. 

That is the opposite of what I said...