https://www.sciencealert.com/scient...-a-way-to-convert-carbon-dioxide-into-plastic Researchers Just Found a Way to Turn CO2 Into Plastic With Unprecedented Efficiency Researchers have developed catalysts that can convert carbon dioxide—the main cause of global warming—into plastics, fabrics, resins, and other products. The electrocatalysts are the first materials, aside from enzymes, that can turn carbon dioxide and water into carbon building blocks containing one, two, three, or four carbon atoms with more than 99 percent efficiency.
LOL, so Cons will acknowledge climate change the moment they learn to make a buck off it, I mean the corporations making money off it while you guys give them free PR with your spam. Must be nice to have a triggered cult to do your bidding on every issue because the immigrants are coming to take ya jerbs and woives.
Yeah, screw any technologies that can potentially minimize the libtard's perceived risk of CO2. I mean screw fusion. They might be able to make money off of it. Clearly, the only solution for the fake CO2 risk is taxing CO2 polluters. That is the only possible solution. Dumb-ass.
This is too far afield for you to grasp, but I'll try anyway. You generally won't find a scientific publication in what we call the primary literature taking such a simple stand as "denying man made global warming." That is not how science and scientists work. Instead you will find publications exploring, for example, the question of whether the atmosphere's feedback to perturbations is positive or negative. You will find papers exploring the time based phase relationship of CO2 concentration changes to changes in atmospheric temperature. You will find papers exploring the problems and errors associated with trying to measure mean atmospheric temperature. (It is extremely difficult.) You will find papers on improvements in climate modeling. You will find papers on ocean acidification, on geothermal energy release in various parts of the world, etc., etc. The Hansen Hypothesis, with which you are by now very familiar, requires that any single observation which is not in concordance with the hypothesis be shown to be incorrect in order for the hypothesis to be accepted as correct for at least the time being. A single observation that is generally accepted as correct and is not in concordance with Hansen's hypothesis is enough to cause the entire hypothesis to be rejected by the scientific world. The Hypothesis has, in fact, been rejected by many of the worlds scientists, including those who are experts in climate and atmospheric physics. What you are reading and hearing about is what we scientists call "pop science" or "Al Gore" science. It is a form of popular pseudo science where everyone pays attention to the observations that support the pop science, but ignore those that don't. When pseudoscience gets blended with politics and a media frenzy, you can have an entirely different sort of phenomenon, but this phenomenon involves a kind of popular public insanity having nothing to do with real science. I would say it is more closely aligned with religion. We have seen this same kind of thing before. In the 20th Century, Eugenics pop science, the Lysenko "Affair," and the "discovery" of "Polywater" would all be good examples of how a kind of pseudo scientific ridiculousness can take hold once it gets promoted by the media and politicians get involved.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pathological_science Pathological science is an area of research where "people are tricked into false results ... by subjective effects, wishful thinking or threshold interactions."[1][2] The term was first[3] used by Irving Langmuir, Nobel Prize–winning chemist, during a 1953 colloquium at the Knolls Research Laboratory. Langmuir said a pathological science is an area of research that simply will not "go away"—long after it was given up on as "false" by the majority of scientists in the field. He called pathological science "the science of things that aren't so."[4][full citation needed][5] Bart Simon lists it among practices pretending to be science: "categories ... such as ... pseudoscience, amateur science, deviant or fraudulent science, bad science, junk science, and popular science ... pathological science, cargo-cult science, and voodoo science."[6] Examples of pathological science may include Martian canals, N-rays, polywater, and cold fusion. The theories and conclusions behind all of these examples are currently rejected or disregarded by the majority of scientists.
What a bunch of nonsensical garbage. So you are the authority on what's pop science and what's real because you only pay attention to papers that support your bias as a conservative. Here is an authoritative meta analysis of the subject SOCCR2 is an authoritative decadal assessment of carbon cycle science across North America, developed by over 200 experts from the U.S., Canadian and Mexican governments, national laboratories, universities, private sector, and research institutions. SOCCR2 is a Sustained Assessment Product of the U.S. Global Change Research Program. https://carbon2018.globalchange.gov/ Tell me if this is pop science or should I go over to HeartlandExxon for the real science?