6 ms·

> There is not a more dire time than today for mounting, as a world, an immediate and potent response to the climate crisis. I am sorry. And, with respect, be

> There is not a more dire time than today for mounting, as a world, an immediate and potent response to the climate crisis. I am sorry. And, with respect, because I know just how difficult it is to escape the tight grip of this sort of thing. What you are saying demonstrates the depths of indoctrination that has been achieved in this matter. They have people running scared for no reason at all. This is not a dire time. Nothing is going to happen. It isn't the end of the world. It isn't the end of humanity. And, no, there is absolutely nothing --not one thing-- we can do to slow down, stop or reverse planetary scale atmospheric CO2 levels. The very idea is beyond laughable. There are so many ways to show just how ridiculous this is. Ways that don't require advanced scientific knowledge at all to comprehend. Yet, just like indoctrination can make a person commit utterly irrational acts of violence, in this case, it has created millions of people living in a mental fantasy of ridiculous proportions. In short, what you believe is not true. It is a fantasy. Rather than ending my comment at that statement, I'll offer you the simplest possible tool for thought. Maybe this gets you started down a different path that might help shake loose from these beliefs. I don't know. Indoctrination is a powerful force. They are using it to make billions of dollars and will not let up, because it works very well. Have a look at this picture. It shows annual CO2 contribution per country. https://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/styles/original/public/2023-07/2020-annual-Eng-v3.png?itok=BX-thBiN https://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/styles/original/p... The first thing to understand is that zero CO2 emissions is impossible. At a minimum, every person on this planet emits somewhere around 1 kg of CO2 per day. Yet, that's not the limiting factor. A massive amount of CO2, way beyond that, is emitted every day in other ways, all natural. Not to go too far, natural forest fires dwarf the emissions of some industrial sources. Zero carbon is a fantasy. Solar panels won't do it. Wind farms won't do it. Electric vehicles won't do it. Etc. Yet, let's go ahead and indulge in a fantasy. Let's assume that the US and China get down to zero CO2 annual emissions. Nothing. How? Captain Jean Luc Piccard beams everything in both countries into the dark of space. The US and China cease to exist. No people, buildings, animals, plants, nothing. The become sand deserts (or whatever emits zero CO2). What happens then? Well, you have eliminated 13% (US) and 31% (China) annual global CO2 contribution. A total of 44%. That means that the rest of the world still emits 56%. Which means that, not only will atmospheric CO2 concentration not stop, it will not reverse --ever. When someone presents you with any "save the world" idea, the first question should be: "How is that better than erasing the US and China from the planet?". The honest answer should be: Not even close. Which means the so-called solution is nothing more than a fantasy. It will do nothing more than enrich a bunch of people and do absolutely nothing for the environment. Does this mean we don't switch to clean energy and electric cars? No, of course not. These are good ideas and commendable objectives. Let's stop lying about this whole climate change and "save the planet" business though. Cleaning up our act is a good idea because cleaner cities and a more energy-efficient society are good ideas. These things will do nothing to save even a continent, much less the entire planet. Save from what? Nothing. The planet has no issues at all. There's more, but I'll stop there. Most people will not even bother to consider that what they believe are fantasies promoted using billions of dollars and a network of cooperating entities with aligned interests. They ring the bell, and the masses salivate. And they are really good at making this happen.

cameldrv 3y ago
> The first thing to understand is that zero CO2 emissions is impossible. At a minimum, every person on this planet emits somewhere around 1 kg of CO2 per day. Yet, that's not the limiting factor. A massive amount of CO2, way beyond that, is emitted every day in other ways, all natural. Not to go too far, natural forest fires dwarf the emissions of some industrial sources. Why was atmospheric CO2 relatively constant for thousands of years prior to industrialization? All of those forest fires were still happening. The reason is that nature creates an equilibrium. Forest burns down releasing carbon, new forest grows there absorbing carbon. The problem started when we started digging up trapped carbon from millions of years ago. I’d suggest that your thinking is unsound and you should reconsider where your ideas come from.
- robomartin 3y ago
  > Why was atmospheric CO2 relatively constant for thousands of years prior to industrialization? Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Here's 800K years of indisputable and reliable data for you: https://i.imgur.com/SW4tLGe.png https://i.imgur.com/SW4tLGe.png Source: https://data.ess-dive.lbl.gov/portals/CDIAC https://data.ess-dive.lbl.gov/portals/CDIAC And here: https://www.nature.com/articles/nature06949.pdf https://www.nature.com/articles/nature06949.pdf > All of those forest fires were still happening. The up/down cycle, over the last 800K years has been somewhere in the range of 50K up and 100K down for a 100ppm change. Why did it go up when humanity wasn't even around (or was a rounding error)? Things burned. Massive continental-scale forest fires. Tens of thousands of years of that. Why did it go down? Weather. Rain. Hurricanes. Cyclones. Forests growing again. Over tens of thousands of years. > I’d suggest that your thinking is unsound and you should reconsider where your ideas come from. These are not ideas. This is data and science. Not the bull being floated around by the people making billions with this nonsense. Do not confuse me saying that the climate change nonsense being floated is a fantasy with climate change denial. These two things are VERY different. Yes, we managed to rapidly increase CO2 concentration. We did that. We absolutely did. That is absolutely true. No, we are not going to "save the planet". We are not going to achieve zero carbon and we sure as hell not going to reduce atmospheric CO2 concentration in any even remotely close to a human lifetime. Not even a thousand years. That is complete nonsense. That's the nonsense. The falsehoods. The lies. They have kids scared that they are going to die in a dozen years. What they did to Greta Thunberg should be classified as child abuse. They are pushing around complete nonsense because they've been able to convince so many people that this shit is real that now billions are being made. It's a snowball. What's sad is that, if people don't wake up, the damage this is going to cause will be irreversible. Instead of burning billions on this nonsense we ought to be focusing on things that can have exponentially greater impact on society and the environment. Here's some homework: Go research how many container ships trips are made to/from China per year. Then research how much fuel they use. Then go learn about bunker fuel (what they burn) and how horrible the stuff is. What would I spend billions of dollars on? Subsidizing major inshoring of as many industries as humanly possible in the US, Europe and other places. What we are doing to the planet by shipping to/from China is an absolute abomination. The impact of responsible inshoring of industries and the near elimination of containership traffic would dwarf anything else anyone is talking about these days. Do not accept what they have been shoving into your brains. The emperor has no clothes.

cameldrv 3y ago

> The first thing to understand is that zero CO2 emissions is impossible. At a minimum, every person on this planet emits somewhere around 1 kg of CO2 per day. Yet, that's not the limiting factor. A massive amount of CO2, way beyond that, is emitted every day in other ways, all natural. Not to go too far, natural forest fires dwarf the emissions of some industrial sources. Why was atmospheric CO2 relatively constant for thousands of years prior to industrialization? All of those forest fires were still happening. The reason is that nature creates an equilibrium. Forest burns down releasing carbon, new forest grows there absorbing carbon. The problem started when we started digging up trapped carbon from millions of years ago. I’d suggest that your thinking is unsound and you should reconsider where your ideas come from.

robomartin 3y ago
> Why was atmospheric CO2 relatively constant for thousands of years prior to industrialization? Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Here's 800K years of indisputable and reliable data for you: https://i.imgur.com/SW4tLGe.png https://i.imgur.com/SW4tLGe.png Source: https://data.ess-dive.lbl.gov/portals/CDIAC https://data.ess-dive.lbl.gov/portals/CDIAC And here: https://www.nature.com/articles/nature06949.pdf https://www.nature.com/articles/nature06949.pdf > All of those forest fires were still happening. The up/down cycle, over the last 800K years has been somewhere in the range of 50K up and 100K down for a 100ppm change. Why did it go up when humanity wasn't even around (or was a rounding error)? Things burned. Massive continental-scale forest fires. Tens of thousands of years of that. Why did it go down? Weather. Rain. Hurricanes. Cyclones. Forests growing again. Over tens of thousands of years. > I’d suggest that your thinking is unsound and you should reconsider where your ideas come from. These are not ideas. This is data and science. Not the bull being floated around by the people making billions with this nonsense. Do not confuse me saying that the climate change nonsense being floated is a fantasy with climate change denial. These two things are VERY different. Yes, we managed to rapidly increase CO2 concentration. We did that. We absolutely did. That is absolutely true. No, we are not going to "save the planet". We are not going to achieve zero carbon and we sure as hell not going to reduce atmospheric CO2 concentration in any even remotely close to a human lifetime. Not even a thousand years. That is complete nonsense. That's the nonsense. The falsehoods. The lies. They have kids scared that they are going to die in a dozen years. What they did to Greta Thunberg should be classified as child abuse. They are pushing around complete nonsense because they've been able to convince so many people that this shit is real that now billions are being made. It's a snowball. What's sad is that, if people don't wake up, the damage this is going to cause will be irreversible. Instead of burning billions on this nonsense we ought to be focusing on things that can have exponentially greater impact on society and the environment. Here's some homework: Go research how many container ships trips are made to/from China per year. Then research how much fuel they use. Then go learn about bunker fuel (what they burn) and how horrible the stuff is. What would I spend billions of dollars on? Subsidizing major inshoring of as many industries as humanly possible in the US, Europe and other places. What we are doing to the planet by shipping to/from China is an absolute abomination. The impact of responsible inshoring of industries and the near elimination of containership traffic would dwarf anything else anyone is talking about these days. Do not accept what they have been shoving into your brains. The emperor has no clothes.