No one serious is claiming that CO2 is at unprecedented levels or that we're going to Venus levels of runaway greenhouse effect. However it's indisputable that we're conducting a massive global experiment in dramatically increasing CO2 levels over a short amount of time and that even a 1-2 level rise in sea level and minor climate changes will lead to trillions in cost and the potential for significant conflict and human suffering. Why risk that when the solution is relatively easy, straightforward, and solvable?
Most solutions to rising CO2 are super expensive is the issue. My perspective on this is how much of the CO2 is caused by human and how much is natural. Amazing how scientists don't point that out.
Actually the scientists studying climate change point that out in excruciating detail down to the ton, highly encourage you to read a few papers on the subject. I would also challenge you to quantify and specify what is "super expensive", because I believe that to be categorically false. Unsubsidized wind and solar are now the cheapest new forms for electricity generation. (https://www.computerworld.com/artic...e-cheapest-source-for-new-electric-power.html). The prices of these technologies is falling on the order of 10-15% a year. And that's before you factor in the massive direct subsidies we provide to fossil fuel and indirect subsidies in the form of pollution monitoring, response and preparedness, military spending to protect oil producing areas... and as I pointed out in an earlier post here, the 5 million workdays lost every year due to fossil fuel pollution induced respiratory issues and the 17,000 annual hospital admissions due to fossil fuel pollution induced asthma, pneumonia, and cardiovascular issues - In the U.S. alone, not to mention places like China where pollution is far worse. And the healthcare costs associated with that. So I ask you, have you really done the math on this "super expensive", or that's just what you've been told and you never really took the time to investigate if that was true or not? And the true test of if you have an open mind, are you now going to go search for data to prove your previously held (on the basis of little data or investigation) "super expensive" idea, or are you going to actually quantify the costs of both and come to an independent decision based on data and not what you've been told to think?
Not really. Don't really care. It'll take generations for the effect to be felt and I'll be long dead. So don't really care. My unique perspective on this is the earth has survived a massive meteor impact, it can survive humans. But does the earth need humans?
What a unique combination of selfishness, lack of intellectual curiosity, and nihilism. You must be proud. How about this, if you don't know and can't be bothered to care to know about something, then just stop spouting off false information about it? I'll agree to the same.
Great chart. I can't help but notice this: Seemed all the CO2 spikes were associated with some sort of extinctions of vegetation and lives no matter the causes. I wonder who will be extinct in the upcoming spike?
I could see he loved to tease you. This is exactly what he wanted you to do: Getting upset. Not worth getting upset over an anonymous poster. Best regards,
While it’s true some form of life could continue if shtf, there are folks who leave things better than they find them and those who don’t. Athough unlikely, the possibility exists that at some point the latter connects the dots and realizes the $&@!? coming from upstream is connected to the $&@?! they’ve been excreting downstream. I’ve been appreciating the thoughtful discussion, please carry on.