[robomartin]

> 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/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]

> 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]

> 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

Source:

https://data.ess-dive.lbl.gov/portals/CDIAC

And here:

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]

Your graph shows a fluctuation between about 180 and 280 for the last 800,000 years. It’s currently at 421 and it’s going up 2 points a year. The change of 140 since 1950 is more than all of the variation over the prior 800,000 years.

As for the solution to the problem, that is another topic, but you have to get the basic facts of the matter straight before you can have a valid opinion.

[robomartin]

You are arguing against something I did not say.

Show me where I made any comment about the current level of CO2 in the atmosphere.

Show me where I said humanity did not contribute to the increase.

Show me where I said it isn't real.

Show me where I said anything related to your ridiculous comment.

Your indoctrination is blinding you from being able to understand what someone is saying. All you see is "Enemy, enemy, enemy!" and that's it. Facts be damned. Science be damned. Nothing else matters. You bought into the nonsense and are not willing to actually reason about any of it.

[cameldrv]

> 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)?

My point is that for hundreds of thousands of years, CO2 stayed within a 100ppm range. Then in 70 years it shot up 140ppm, consistently, year after year, tightly correlated with fossil fuel usage. That is way outside the the historical record.

Anyhow yes of course there are natural forces that cause variation, and likewise artificial forces. In this case the artificial forces (specifically fossil fuel burning, but also others) are very obviously dominating.

Your problem is that someone has told you to think that everyone is indoctrinated, and therefore you won't listen to really basic logic.

[robomartin]

Do you understand what I am saying?

Maybe you don't. No, not because you are not intelligent. I believe you are. Maybe even smarter than me (which isn't hard at all).

Maybe I haven't done a good job of explaining my position. I don't think that's the case, yet, it is perplexing to see someone post replies about things I did not say at all.

So, in the interest of constructive conversation, I'll offer you this:

Ask me questions on this subject and I'll answer them. Short simple questions, not entire paragraphs of questions. No, not "What's the meaning of life?" type questions. Questions that might help you understand my position. Understand what I am saying and what I am not saying.

I am happy to have a conversation with you on that basis. I assure you I am not a climate change denier. I am also not one of those people who thinks it was natural to get to over 400 ppm. Not the case. We did it. Absolutely. And I have said this much in this thread. This is why I am perplexed by your comments. It's like you are replying to a third person. You are finding things I did not say and replying to those things. I don't understand.

Ask away. Or don't. Your choice.

[M1ch431]

I just want to say that while we probably do have some fundamental differences of opinions, I am a bit puzzled when you suggest that I am indoctrinated or otherwise brainwashed.

I assure you that, in fact, I am very aware in general of how strong and pervasive the profit motive is, how money drives research, and how sometimes research isn't entirely reproducible or is otherwise flawed from the premise or methodologies used. I am also very aware of how research is weaponized to push an agenda by many different types of actors - who may not be in good faith; agendas that likely won't amount to real change in the grand scheme of things - beyond lining the pockets of the few.

I believe that there are plenty of problems on Earth that I would classify as top priority for everyone in the world to address and for them to actively participate in the solutions. Things are not fine, we fundamentally disagree. And I do think there is enough consensus from all sources, that there are some pretty dire predictions for the world. I believe everybody is entitled to forming their own opinions, and that critical thinking absolutely shouldn't be discouraged. You are not harshly judged by me. I'm sure you could link me many studies where you identify a conflict of interest, or identify bad faith, or point out an agenda that is assuredly not for the greater good, or perhaps just dismiss studies that you would liken to fear porn - or an overreaction. And that's fine, I do have an open mind, a mind which I try to exercise, I may not even need to be convinced or informed. But dismissing all the research highlighting the problems potentially coming ahead is definitely a big claim, and requires extraordinary evidence to convince me or anybody reading the thread.

It is indeed a bit of a fantasy to suggest that we, as a species and global community, could penetrate the barriers that limit our creativity and stifle progress, and initiate in good faith diplomacy with one another, and conceive of working together to plan and manifest a better future without our current trajectory poisoning the well.

Fantasy or not, I'd like to believe that human beings are somewhat capable of the diplomacy, civility, and tolerance displayed in TV shows like Star Trek. We are perhaps currently barbaric, but probably still not too far off from shifting away from those practices if we actively utilize technology and our knowledge and ingenuity to change the world as a whole to one that is truly post-scarcity.

[robomartin]

> I am a bit puzzled when you suggest that I am indoctrinated or otherwise brainwashed.

The language you are using is grafted from every narrative being sold.

Nobody who takes the time (it took me about 8 months) to look-up, understand and critically think about the available data says these things.

It's like talking about anti gravity devices to make hoverboards. Sounds fantastic. Not real.

> But dismissing all the research highlighting the problems potentially coming ahead is definitely a big claim, and requires extraordinary evidence to convince me or anybody reading the thread.

This is precisely where everyone goes with this.

What I said is, to put it simply: We cannot "save the planet".

In quotes because the very phrase is ridiculous.

We are being told that, if we spend billions of dollars on nonsense and destroy entire economies we are going to "address climate change" and in some cases they'll add "within a generation or two".

There are only two ways to sell such nonsense. The first is you do a great job of indoctrinating people. The other is to make sure the masses are not educated enough to distinguish between reality and fantasy.

They are using both.

They have actually sold the masses on this idea that we can affect a planetary scale issue in the span of one or two human lives. In a rational society these people would be laughed off the stage.

Reality? If humanity left the planet tomorrow. In other words, the most extreme form of eliminating all of our carbon contributions. It would take somewhere between 50K and 100K years for a reduction of 100ppm of CO2.

How can I make this assertion?

I am not making it myself. We have reliable data showing this in great detail for the last 800K years.

In other words, we know exactly what the planet does without humans around.

So, if the most extreme form of CO2 emissions reduction --no more humans on the planet-- would require 100K years for a 100ppm reduction, how can anyone claim that we can do that A THOUSAND TIMES FASTER while billions of people and all of our industries, etc. are still around.

This is so ridiculous it isn't even a good joke.