Nad R wrote:
Doug Freyburger wrote:

It is clear you have not read any of my posts.

Take a look at your last posting.

I will use smaller sentences.

Sequence one.

1) Per geology life thrives in warm climates.

2) Per archeology humans thrive in warm climates.

3) The cause is irrelevant given those two points.

4) Because global warming should be beneficial what's the fuss about?

Sequence two.

1) So scare mongers must do it for other reasons.

2) Scare mongers must not care about the actual topic.

3) Scare mongers tend to be collectivists.

4) Collectivists tend to dislike capitalists.

5) So scare mongers are using the topic in a political campaign.

Sequence three.

1) Global warming is real.

2) Human causation is a matter of recent concensus.

3) Across history, recent concensus in science has often been wrong.

4) Why care since the predicted result is beneficial?

Sequence four.

1) Fossil fuel is limited.

2) Green power includes wind, solar, hydroelectric and nuclear.

3) Wind is expensive but dropping slowly in price.

4) Solar is expensive but on an exponential curve.

5) Exponential curves can have good results, just not today.

6) The installed base of hydroelectric is nearing the maximum.

7) Hydroelectric damages cute fishees.

8) Nuclear is politically unpopular.

9) That's yet another sign the scare mongers aren't honest about their
goals.

10) Developing green sources is still good because fossil fuel is
limited.

Conclusion.

It's not about what you claim it's about. So you make up stuff about
what my stance is.