3 ms·
"The idea that humans breathing produces enough carbon to affect climate change seems..." That's because that's not the idea. You don't even understand the arg
by RyanAF7 7y ago
"The idea that humans breathing produces enough carbon to affect climate change seems..."
That's because that's not the idea. You don't even understand the argument. What you linked adds zero value to your argument, and the cows/agriculture bit only supports mine.
Do you write down and reason out what you're saying or just type as the ego-filtered justifications come to you?
- Noumenon72 7y agoI'm sure my links aren't going to be relevant if I've misunderstood your argument so badly! "Now, 150 years after the end of the Little Ice Age and with an extra 6.3 billion people breathing in air, absorbing oxygen, and exhaling carbon, the temperatures and PPM of Carbon are on the rise." If the exhaling carbon is not significantly affecting the PPM of carbon, wouldn't you have written "Now, 150 years after the end of the Little Ice Age, the temperatures and PPM of Carbon are on the rise." What argument did you intend to make if not "6.3 billion people exhaling carbon is contributing to climate change"?
- RyanAF7 7y agoYou focused on the wrong thing. It's not about exhaling carbon, or as you originally stated, "producing" CO2. It's about the absorption of Oxygen. Consider a popular idea, that planting 1 trillion trees to scrub carbon through transpiration, I assume you're familiar with it, is given real credence as a solition to heterogenic climate change then why are you so quick to dismiss the notion that humans doing the exact same thing by breathing isn't an aspect of the problem of increasing CO2 PPM? My argument, was if the article is all about human population booms ending and thus with it Capitalism, and the author still only correlates economic activity to increasing climate danger then its irresponsible and uninformed. Undermining the entire premise of the article.