> I suggest you to stay away from statement like that.

I will not. Reality is important, and repeated denials of reality, like yours, are dangerous and can mislead people. You may call this condescending and emotional, but you're dancing around the fact that you lie and mislead people, and you don't want to be held accountable for that. You get no free pass from me.

> Scientists were telling us that "vaccines are safe and effective". Well, statistics shows otherwise.

Yeah, let's dodge into a completely different topic. But you're wrong here too. Vaccines have saved millions of lives. The effectiveness of vaccines has been well established for centuries. Small pox has been completely eradicated by vaccines. Polio nearly so. That doesn't mean every vaccine is equally effective, but many vaccines clearly are incredibly effective. It's people sowing unfounded doubt about this who are endangering the lives of millions of people now and in the future.

> The "climate change" agenda asks for huge societal changes in way humans operate vehicles and "emit CO2". This leads not to global impact and redistribution of income across large enterprises mining minerals for batteries, solar panels and sorts.

Did you mean to say it doesn't lead to global impact? Then what exactly are you complaining about?

The fact is, something having impact or consequences doesn't mean it's some sort of nefarious evil. It's a natural consequence of tackling problems, but also of new technologies and new opportunities. The invention of the car, the computer, and really every new product that comes to the market leads to "redistribution of income across large enterprises" because that's how capitalism works. I'm not opposed to tackling the problems of capitalism, but I don't want to do that at the cost of millions of lives.

> Unless changes are non evolutional and incentivised.

What the hell does that mean? Are you trying to hide your lack of real arguments behind vague but scary sounding phrases?

> Our planet is a very complex organism, in which we still have very little knowledge of how things are going on and what depends on what.

Which is why scientists have put a lot of effort into studying that. A lot. And so far, there's not a shred of evidence to cast any doubt on the theory that the greenhouse effect does indeed work on a global scale, like Graham Bell predicted over a century ago.

> The only way to prudently approach the problem is to see available data across many years and try to make conclusions.

We've done that.

But what's also prudent is to try to not cause dramatic changes to a complex system we barely understand, and yet that's exactly what we've been doing for the past centuries. We are having an impact on this complex system of Earth's climate, and we are destabilising it, and the fact that we don't fully understand all the complex intricacies yet, is no reason to just blindly continue destabilising it. The prudent thing would be to stop doing that. But that threatens the profits of the most powerful lobby on the planet.

> Oil lobby pushing legislation and profiteering from it is nothing new. It does exist - and so does "climate change" lobby.

Except the oil lobby is trying to protect their trillion dollar profits, whereas the climate lobby is trying to protect the planet. These are not the same.

> it's important to deny logical thinking when someone tries to assess the "climate change".

I was afraid you'd feel that way, but I'm surprised you're this honest about it.

I have tried to get you to think more critically and more logically about this issue, but if you really feel so strongly that it's important to you to reject logical thinking, then there's not much I can do for you. I just hope others who see this will care and not be drawn into your propaganda.