I skipped reading the entire article, since within the first two paragraphs I found three “facts”…
Jon Weiss

Thank you Jon for your reply.

Let me address your points in two parts please.

Part 1: your arguments

“1. If we were consuming 1.7 planets per year the earth would not exist after the third year of this phony model.”

The 1.7 number is a calculation based on rate of consumption. It means we use faster than what gets regenerated. If you spend more than what you have, it doesn’t mean you don’t exist the next day, just that your capital is reducing and at some point you run in trouble.

2. “Most scientists do not agree, and even if they did, true science is based on facts & repeatable results, not consensus.”

From Nasa website: https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals1 show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree*: Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities.

3. “Burning fossil fuels does pollute but at a rate lower than that of nature. Forests are a renewable crop, there are actually more acres of forest in the U.S. today than there were in the 1960s, and the acreage being logged today is lower than in the 1970s.”

It’s not just about the US. We’re talking about the planet and the rate of deforestation is very concerning. The extent of pollution coming from burning fossil fuels and deforestation is something we should have no problem agreeing upon.

Part 2: I’m not your ennemy

There is no “nice try” here. Even if all of the climate science was not true, everything I wrote after that would still hold true and would be worth doing. Why would you want to keep having food that makes people sick, or spend your money in things you’re not even going to use, or fill oceans with waste that comes back in your fish? What do you even gain from dismissing my view, what’s the approach you’re supporting? Everything is just fine as it is?