Thank you for reading and for your reply.
You say: "There is no climate emergency".
The overwhelming scientific evidence in the IPCC reports, that are heavily redacted to minimize any footholds for facile claims of 'alarmism', spells out the likelihood and costs to humanity and the environment, if we don't take drastic action now.
We install smoke-alarms because the science indicates that if we don't, we stand a high probability of dying and cause harm to others. We act on the best knowledge with the best tools. We don't wait for someone to suffocate (the crisis) to take action.
Here the science indicates that if we don't take 'drastic' action, I.e. concerted global action, the consequences, will be much more painful.
The point I am trying to make is: if science, the best knowledge we have, tells us that there is a problem (in this case a crisis, because the train is in motion and hard to slow-down), and it provides us with different paths as to how we can best prevent the worst outcomes, then, who are we to say that we know better? Do we know better than the peer-reviewed body of science? Do we understand the economic consequences of a 4 degree increase in average global temperatures within a few generation? I suggest we don't.
Should we let Joe Blo decide if he thinks it's convenient to install a smoke alarm, or should we mandate it and have the systems and processes in place so that every house has a smoke detector? The pain of prevention clearly outweighs the pain of crisis, so we act on our best knowledge.
When the problem is exponentially more complex and with potentially vastly greater consequences, such as with Climate Change, many of us, prefer to wait and see until the house is on fire before calling it a crisis. Obviously by then it's too late.
The IPCC qualifies all its conditions with agreed definitions, has all data peer-reviewed and provides its conclusions with degrees of probabilities, urgency and severity.
When stating: "There is no climate crisis" it is up to you to define what conditions should be met when you will call it a climate crisis and why your definition is better.
Well, that's just my opinion :)
