Climate disaster

Here's an advert for something which I gather will be a global event.

It's idiotic.

It's idiotic from a number of perspectives.

Scientifically:

1. There are many scientists who disagree with the "common opinion". They get shut up, shut down, and some find it easier to just leave the profession rather than struggle on in the vague hope of changing minds.
2. There doesn't seem to be much said about why increasing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is truly bad for the environment. Sure, speculation is that it will increase the 'global' temperature, which is speculated to cause ice caps to melt, which is speculated to raise sea levels. A lot of speculation. But the earth has coped with high levels of carbon dioxide before.
3. Man-made carbon emissions are only a part of the atmospheric carbon dioxide increase. Even if all humanity cut carbon emissions, it won't prevent the rise, only delay it. (I accept that some people might consider this to be a good enough reason, although I disagree. It's only an opinion anyway.)
4. What is the 'ideal' global temperature of the earth? No one knows. It's an arbitrary number with no real scientific backing.
5. What is the 'ideal' sea level? Again, no one knows. This really is an arbitrary number entirely based on people living at the coast.

Practically:

1. Almost every society in the world is dependent on fossil fuels. Banning carbon emissions will bring civilisation to a halt (at best), likely sending it back a few hundred years. (I accept that some people don't think this matters enough, but I seriously doubt they can convince the whole of humanity.)
2. Even those who are 'true believers' continue living lives hypocritical to their beliefs: flying around the world for conferences, protests and to bring awareness to the 'problem'.
3. The amount of money which is being invested into trying to change the weather (the full cost by some proposals being in the trillions of US dollars) would be better spent helping poor people moving house from the coast to somewhere higher up, and helping island nations re-locate too. It would likely be cheaper.

Evolutionary:

1. Evolution is all about change over time. If we believe this is how all species came into existence, why must the climate be denied an evolutionary experience?

Socially:

1. The climate alarmism is just another issue that has been highly politicised and is polarising people even more.
2. The two sides of the debate interestingly seem to be divided much like the political left and right, giving the impression that the issue is more political than practical.
3. Such protests keep people out of their educational institution and out of their workplace.
4. The information provided is cleverly disguised to look like it says more than it does. (For example, find an answer to points 4 and 5 of the "Scientifically" section above.) The issue prevents people from doing their own research and finding accurate statistics, instead making people regurgitate the same logically flawed statements with no proper backing.

This protest on the 20th September is a complete waste of time. The science is far from 'settled'; the consequences exaggerated; the premises assumed; the proposed 'solutions' flawed. Children would be better off remaining in school (although, if their education is about promoting the protest, etc., then perhaps they are better off not being in school!), and adults would be better off working for the day, contributing to society and making some money.

I will not be joining people on the protest. I'd rather be 'protesting the protest'! If I meet anyone on the protest, I shall enjoy mocking them.