That's like saying I'm on the "sky is blue" train. It's not a train, it's reality. Perhaps you've heard of it?
So, you're saying that "climate change" is more than a theory and is scientifically proved, I hear you.
I actually said the opposite. I said specifically that Canada has more lakes than the rest of the world combined and so we WON'T get droughts. We also have a crap-tonne of polar ice so water won't be OUR problem but it could be a problem elsewhere. Take a look at a map sometime, find where Canada is and start counting the lakes and rivers. When you're done, ten years will have probably passed.
Cool, so, you'd be worried about floods, noted.
No, you're gaslighting me with that. I'm ok with doing a known bad thing because I KNOW (not hope) that it will help EVERYWHERE. That local ecosystem you're so concerned about will be destroyed with everything else. I also have made it clear that I believe the ultimate solution is Geo-Thermal power, something that doesn't submerge anything.
Every time you're ok with some destruction, you should get some self reflection time, since it's a lot of responsibility and you might be screwing something big time if you got it wrong. Already told you that rivers, lakes and "the planet" in general won't go anywhere on a hotter Earth, and I challenge you to prove me wrong, please. You're trying to "save" habitats, even if you're not aware yet, by destroying habitats, and your logic is that you're saving more than what you're destroying. The flaw there is you don't talk about "creating" anything, you're only about "destruction for conservation", which is a net negative. If enough people follow your logic there won't be any habitat to conserve in the near future.
The only reason it seems like a cult to you is that you don't understand and therefore don't believe scientific theory. Anything that you don't understand seems like magic and/or superstition. Well, to those of us who DO understand it, it's simple logic. The cult is deniers like you because you believe what you do because you WANT to. Do you think that I WANT to believe in climate change, that I WANT it to be true? Of course I don't! I believe it because the evidence is conclusive and I'm not stupid.
There's a red flag: science and belief shouldn't share a sentence. The fact that you "believe" in science is the mark of the cult. Science doesn't require your faith, gravity will pull you regardless of your belief system. The scientific theory is THE METHOD that doesn't trust anything, and tries to prove everything wrong. The science is what survives all those tests. If your THEORY fails at explaining something it doesn't mean that there is a lack of faith, it means that it's flawed and that it needs more work. If you think that climate change is "proven science" then good for you; there are other not so naive people that still stick to the scientific principle and want to see more proof.
None of this is "provable" since it's something that "is supposed to happen". You won't be able to "prove" your model (which is basically what "climate change" is) until it happens, and you want to use your model to prevent the outcome. So, unless you have an Earth carbon copy around to test it before it happens, you'll have to go on faith, You push that strong belief in your model too hard and you get to the cult zone.
