By a "technologist" I assume this means someone with a reasonable level of study of science. If that's the case, you need to start pushing hard to become a voi

By a "technologist" I assume this means someone with a reasonable level of study of science. If that's the case, you need to start pushing hard to become a voice for reason. What's going on with climate change is truly disgusting. It's a political football that, at least in the US, both political extremes use to gather an audience. Deniers are demented. And zealots are just as crazy. "The fight against climate change" is a commonly used phrase. And, yes, this is crazy. Please, "technologists", engage your brain and do some math. Please explain how it is that we can "fight" planetary scale effects that require 50K to 100K years for a meaningful change by doing any of the things we are being told to do. First you have to understand the baseline. What is the baseline? How long would it take for a 100 ppm reduction in CO2 if humanity did not exist? All of our technology and all of us gone. Poof. How long? We know this with great accuracy. The answer is a range between 50K and 100K years. 50K and 100K years. How do we know this with such certainty? Ice core atmospheric samples going back 800K years. This is a highly accurate and reliable dataset of what the planet was doing when we were not mucking with it. Where do you find such data? Here: https://cdiac.ess-dive.lbl.gov/trends/co2/ice_core_co2.html https://cdiac.ess-dive.lbl.gov/trends/co2/ice_core_co2.html All you have to do is apply very basic analysis to determine the slopes of the up/down cycles to reach a very simple conclusion: We cannot do a thing about climate change. Why? Because if we left the planet entirely it would take 100K years for CO2 concentration to come down by 100 ppm. What do you think is going to happen if we do anything LESS than leave the planet? The answer is very simple: Nothing. Well, not nothing. Atmospheric CO2 will not drop. It might stabilize at some higher level at some point in the future. Drop? No way in hell. Use less energy you say? How is that BETTER than leaving the planet? Leaving the planet puts us on a slope of -100 ppm in 100K years. Using less energy? It won't even bend the curve. Drive electric cars? How is that BETTER than leaving the planet? It isn't. It won't do a thing. Stop using oil and its derivative products? How is that BETTER than leaving the planet? It isn't. It won't do a thing. Besides, this is impossible. I am not trying to be a defeatist here. When the data tells you everyone is missing the true conclusion by a light year, all you can do is your best to make people think. If you think you can "fight" climate change, stop, study the data I provided a link to, do some math (YOU HAVE TO DO SOME MATH TO UNDERSTAND THIS) and then realize we are mercilessly lying to ourselves. As for climate change deniers: The above doesn't mean you are right. In fact, you are horribly wrong. Once again, look at the data. Climate change is very real. And yes, we made it worse. So, what can you do as a "technologist"? Understand the truth and force a shift in the conversation towards what we have to do in order to deal with the reality of the matter rather than some fantasy being used for political and financial gain. I have been asking people from varied disciplines to refute my conclusion (scientifically, not with "feelings", blind political alignment or religion) --because I WANT to be wrong. In the decade or so since reaching this conclusion nobody has offered any argument against the baseline of the ice core sample data and the conclusion it represents. The best paper I found so far that hints at a "we can't do a thing about it" conclusion is this one: https://storage.googleapis.com/pub-tools-public-publication-data/pdf/43326.pdf https://storage.googleapis.com/pub-tools-public-publication-... If you are a "technologist" this is definitely worth reading.