[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.