The problem is that you have not done any real research on the subject and you are trying to argue with someone who has devoted a non-trivial amount of time to

The problem is that you have not done any real research on the subject and you are trying to argue with someone who has devoted a non-trivial amount of time to truly trying to understand this and, more importantly, understand how I might be wrong. I want to be wrong, yet NOBODY has ever come up with an intelligent observation that invalidates this conclusion. Advance math and science are not required here. First of all, where did I ever claim we need to get back to pre-industrial levels? Please don't put words in my mouth. The consensus seems to be that the objective should be a 100 ppm reduction from --roughly-- current levels. That will take 50,000 years, give or take a few tens of thousands of years. We can't fix it. Why? Because we can't fix it faster than leaving the planet. Any other imaginary 50-year solution will require planetary scale energy and resources we do not have. We are far more likely to kill all life on earth by trying some dumb "save the planet" solution than to fix a thing. > Do nothing and let emissions accelerate even further, create an even bigger problem than we've already created. Gamble to an even greater extent with our future. OK, how about not taking my word for it. Please read this paper. Really read it. Then come back to your statement. https://storage.googleapis.com/pub-tools-public-publication-data/pdf/43326.pdf https://storage.googleapis.com/pub-tools-public-publication-... I won't ruin the conclusion for you. I give huge credit to these researchers for daring to speak the truth. They actually say they went into this to prove, once and for all, to the entire world, that their renewable energy vision --one shared and still promoted globally-- was our savior. What they discovered is interesting and very much parallels my conclusion, yet they come at it from a very different perspective. If you are honestly open-minded and want to understand the subject, this is your starting point. This is the paper that launched me into a year-long quest to understand what's going on. Read it and come back to me. > To me your post comes across like someone on the Titanic saying 'Hey guys, we've looked at the data and situation, stop thinking these 20 lifeboats will be able to rescue us. Just give up.' Exactly the opposite. I am the guy saying: We can't save everyone. We don't have enough boats. We need to figure out if we can build more. What zealots are saying is: We can save the Titanic with this magical cork. That's the difference. Read the paper. Please. It's from a very reputable source you will recognize and respect. No quackery. Real science. We need to build more boats and stop this nonsense about saving the Titanic.