You're so weird in flipping what I'm saying
Your claims, not mine. Up to you to defend them.
Less extreme weather is good for humanity.
Well, it's good that you now admit it. But as you have seen, we are seeing more extreme weather. Warming means more energy in the atmosphere, and thereby more extreme weather.
This is how you know global warming is not science but a religion; no rejection criteria.
Well, let's look at your assumptions. What evidence would refute climate warming?
1. Long-term global mean temperatures dropping.
But as you know, the trend for average global temperature is sharply rising. Would you like me to show you again? I understand that data is a four-letter word for deniers. But it's still real.
That's the indication. We know that atmospheric carbon drives atmospheric temperatures, something discovered back in the late 1800s. We know humans have been dumping increasing amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, and we notice that the temperatures rise with those concentrations. Hard not to notice.
In your world view, cooling doesn't contribute to more extreme weather - but that contradicts what alarmists said in the 1970's.
Two errors there. First, the data I showed you indicates that cooling could do that, over a long period of time. And "alarmists" might have been predicting cooling in the 1970s, but the great majority of climate scientists even then, were predicting warming in the long run.
The facts in scientific literature aren't hard to find. But you have to do it. You're a victim only as long as you let others dictate the facts for you. Are you willing to find out for yourself?