1. For a debate, we need two sides of an issue
2. Let us say, you are a so-called climate advocate
3. Chances are you would want to preach first about how it work
4. That is fine, preach/explain/teach all you want till the cows come home
5. Is there an "ask", if yes, what is it
6. Please be specific, let us avoid the urge to let me come to same unwritten conclusion

1. It is hard for Umesh to imagine a person in our social circle who can explain the climate issue dispassionately
2. It is more likely that most people will parrot out what the preacher said in the church.
3. Believers tend to avoid questioning the book or the preacher.

1. The cause/effect statements are claims, not establised facts
2. The ask is a "lot of money" and "disruption"
3. Let science develop further, before taking a curative action

1. They are denying climate is changing
2. They want to cause more pollution
3. They will be responsible for the damage that our estimator is calculating

1. I suppose there are two parts of the debate.
2. One is about teachings of science, let me call it bible for the sake of conversation.
3. The commonality is I have no competence of my own to question either, I should be accepting what others dish out to me.
4. The other is what are we going to do about it.
5. Let us say that bible suggests to perform a certain act only for the intent to recreate, it is our choice what to do with it.
6. The gospel becomes a challenge for the society only when there is a watchman checking to make sure that I am behaving.

1. There are certain inalienable facts of life.
2. Is the planet warmer than it was a million years ago.
3. Let us say that we wave a magic wand and wipe all of mankind (meaning all the carbon activities, let the man go back to the life of apes) from the face of the earth and wait another million years, would the planet cool down or stay same.
4. My understanding of the bible and claim #1 is that bible reads that planet will continue to change and the forces of the Lord are much stronger than any inhabitant of plant can do.

1. Assuming, we can live with the first claim, the second claim is that there is no science (as opposed to speculation) to calculate what will happen in future.
2. I contrast this with the science where a humongous metal object can fly predictably between two points carrying hundreds of human and land safely.
3. The level of predictability is one hundred percent in the case of flying object for the purpose of this conversation.
4. The predictions about climate change are speculation or if you want to be more kind, estimates based on science (what w know to be true).

If we are comfortable so far, then the next part is about human behavior.

1. Yes, the bible provides all kinds of guidance about human behavior.
2. Thou shall not lie,
3. thou shall treat all humans with respect.
4. Thou shall not burn fossil fuel,
5. hou shall not plastics.

Up to that point, it is fine and we have all accepted it.

Let us say that preacher wants to take a step further and

1. wants control over your life,
2. puts a restraining device on you (if you know what I mean) and
3. does other intrusive audit and
4. asks you to pay extra to support it,

well, chances are you will have a different reaction.

You might accept it if it is done to your neighbor as long as the preacher stays out of your home and keeps his hand away from your wallet. You put enough in the donation box every Sunday.

1. Let us talk about important operative part.
1. Would be world be a better place if we follow all tenets of the bible.
2. Is there any validity to what the preacher says.
2. Let us say yes for the purpose of this conversation.
3. The political question is now
1. how intrusive would you let the preacher and
2. how much more money would you let him take out of your pocket for whatever it is he does with the money.

Let us agree,

• yes, the planet temperature is rising.
• Yes, the land where my home is in florida will be under water in, let us say, 100 years.
• Yes, if I spent a billion dollars, maybe I could get 20 more years on it.

Therefore

1. Do I want to spend a billion dollars.
2. Maybe I will find other ways to enjoy water in next 50 years.
3. Delaying the nature is not the only life choice available to me.

1. A lot of homes that US taxpayers are going to pay to replace in Florida were built 50-60 years ago.
2. They did the best they can at that time.
3. The new house that are being built are hurricane proof.
4. Bring it on, we are ready.
5. One could not raise a family on a hill in 1960s and survive the winter in NJ.
6. Guess what, the world changed and everyone is able to live on a hill. Let the snow come, we can handle it.
7. Scientific community did not forecast these changes

1. Climate folks are requesting significant funding and regulatory oversight
2. Their approach would also require control over what economic activity is permitted
3. There is no guarantee of delivery
4. It is based on estimates of some thay may be revised, hence spculative at best for major decisions

1. A political observer, in my mind, listens to what is said and hears things that nor said.
2. That is actually a good line and I am going to tell my kids how productive this conversation has been.
3. Yes, the climate change is real,
4. Yes, it has been happening for as far back as we can see,
5. Yes, it is going to change the planet in the future.
6. Nobody can stop it.
7. Yes, human activity is increasing the pace of it,
8. yes, we should burn less fossil fuel.
9. Those of us who have a civilizational history were already living that life.

1. No, I am not going to pay you significantly more money and
2. no, I am not going to let you be present in my life to stop me from doing bad things that I otherwise want to do.
3. Find a way to do more with the money I have already given you.
4. Find better source of energy, help me transition.
5. Giving you more money as the only proposition is not something I am willing to accept and
6. that is my difference of opinion with the climate preachers.