I’m sorry that you found my first response insultative — I was only trying to parody the inimitable style of a Trump Tweet. Unfortunately, at this point in time, satire is sometimes the only response I can make.

At the end of your post, you get a bit confusing. However, since you invite people to challenge your specific points…

Storms are not getting stonger: It is difficult to measure the intensity of a storm — what do you count? Amount of rainfall? Wind strength? Cost of damage? The point is, statistical analysis shows corellations between events, and assigns probabilities — the bigger storms seem to be coming more often than we would expect in a random distribution. Why might that be? Physics tells us that more heat in the atmosphere increases the energy available to create extreme storms, it doesn’t tell us when and where those storms will be created. So regardless of the frequency distribution of extreme events, when the extreme events occur, physics tells us that they will be stronger — you burn more gas, the cra speeds up.

An increases C02 content boosts agriculture. Sure does, but measuring this effect with regards specific increases in growth / crop yield as a direct result of C02 levels in the ‘real’ atmosphere, as opposed to a ‘lab’ atmospere? I couldn’t find any research, so I’d be interested in the link. Why I don’t think this effect has fed billions? Other advances in food production technology have been measured and recorded, for example the effects of technology on increased human productivity, the biotechnology behind new crop strains. I you seriously expecting me to believe that these have had less effect than the increase of C02 in the atmosphere, or that somehow, research showing that the increases are largelydown to C02 has been suppressed?

“Nobody has argued that arctic ice has some benefit that losing it would cause” — Taken literally, that’s true. Nobody has argued that losing arctic ice will cause a benefit. Pretty much everyone agrees that losing arctic ice is a major problem. I think actually you meant the opposite, and you want somebody to argue for the current benefits of arctic ice, benefits we would lose if the icce melts? In your original post you use Archimedes to use science to justify your claim that melting arctic ice won’t lead to seal level rises. And you are absolutely correct, as long as you think only of floating sea-ice. The ice sitting on top of land is a different matter. When that melts, Archimedes principle doesn’t apply — you just get a lot of extra water. You can test this at home — put some ice cubes in a glass, fill the glass to the brim. When the ice melts, the water doesn’t overflow the glass. Throw in another few ice cubes to represent the melting of ice situated over land, and I think you’ll find you have water on the table. This is to say nothing about the unpredictable results of melting ice on ocean currents, which would certainly lead to changes in local weather patterns…

“Nobody has argued what the problem with some warming would be, or that warming would accelerate or something” . Type ‘runaway global warming’ into google search and you’ll find plenty of articles that discuss just this point. here is just one example from Scientific American : https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/permafrost-meltdown-raises-risk-of-runaway-global-warming/

What it boils down to is how we interpret the results of science. Science is impartial, physics is physics, our interpretation of the results is human. When science gives us the things we want, we are more than happy to take the benefits of those results, everything we have made as the human race has been the result of ‘science’. Imagine, create, test, evaluate, produce. Our ‘science’ has given us every modern convenience we have, it has provided us with the things that have become fundamental to our society — power, transport, medicine, you name it, it’s all down to science. At the moment, some 98% of climate scientists seem convinced that global warming is a real phenomena, physics suggests to us some potential outcomes of this scenario — I think I know where my money lies, and it’s with the 98%.

Have a nice day…