Max, thanks for reading and your comment. It seems extreme views tend to engender extreme views in the other direction. So, doomsaying that climate change is going to "obliterate" humanity, or that it will be an apocalypse moves the goal posts and engenders even more denial.

Personally, I'm not a "doomer" because I believe we're inexorably headed for extinction. We might be., but my sense of "doom" is that we're not acting fast enough to stave off terrible climate calamity, even if it not apocalyptic, per se. It's going to be bad. It's *already* bad, but it's going to get much, much worse.

I agree that "proof" is another catch-22 and it's better to assess risk. The problem is, we don't get very far in mitigation without the anthropogenic piece. We can't appease the people who think "it's all cyclical" to do their part if they think they have no part in it.

Even if we agree with someone that global floods have happened before, for instance, the next global flood in the offing could be potentially delayed, or lessened, by revolutionary action now, by slowing the warming of the poles, to slow glacial degradation and the resultant sea level rise.

Names that come to mind of those with the most compelling arguments I've read: Guy McPherson, Alex Michaud, Bill McGuire, Elizabeth Kolbert.

Be well.