[luckys]

Because this is HN, (in Allo Allo's Michelle Dubois voice...) "I shall say this only wonce": If you're curious, have a look at Earth's historical temperature and co2 data going back millions of years. What you'll notice is that there's always been oscillations, like a more or less predictable wave. Human activity is polluting the Earth, yes, but this fixation on co2 and other gases (cow farts, really?) is unhealthy to put it mildly.

I'd like to see the same attention being given to plastics (so much single-use crap and how much of it can be recycled?), synthetic clothing, and all kinds of other chemicals including the ones we put in ourselves (pharma, food) and the environment, like fertilizers or the byproducts of mining today's fashionable minerals like lithium. Not to mention the explosion in electromagnetic frequencies activity, which somehow is taken as normal and ok by the same scientific establishment which accepts thousands(?) of fake papers every year for publication. You just have to love the irony when something like Science is deemed 'settled'-- in that regard, it's almost as if we went back a few centuries.

There's certainly a lot to be said for humans needing to take better care of the planet. Co2 just gets a little too much attention for my taste. And don't take from this that I love oil. I find fracking to be abominable and another big factor in polluting the land and the water tables.

[mrpopo]

> There's certainly a lot to be said for humans needing to take better care of the planet. Co2 just gets a little too much attention for my taste.

GHG are a matter of life or death for hundreds of millions living in poverty in coastal areas or living from their own agriculture.

Of course you live in a 1st world country and it likely won't kill you, just cost you tons of money

It's not about "take better care of the planet", whatever you think that means

[luckys]

>GHG are a matter of life or death

That's what I hear from mainstream media all the time. Do you have some information or argument that will help me see things differently?

>Of course you live in a 1st world country and it likely won't kill you, just cost you tons of money

A little presumptuous to assume my living conditions

>It's not about "take better care of the planet", whatever you think that means

Now that's just snarky and done in bad faith. If I didn't care would I have posted it, already antecipating the downvotes?

We humans got where we are much due to technology, but we have to start thinking seriously where we go from here or there won't be land or water (or air?) that isn't polluted by something the planet is not well equiped to process. Have you read on the kind of places that microplastics have been found already? In the human body?

[mrpopo]

> Do you have some information or argument that will help me see things differently?

I already told you 2 things, coastal areas and agriculture.

This is Bangladesh elevation map. Bangladesh is amonng the most dense countries in the world, and also among the poorest.

https://www.floodmap.net/elevation/ElevationMap/CountryMaps/...

People are gonna lose their homes and starve to death, this will create massive refugee crises. They won't care if you have micro plastics in your testicles

[raducu]

> notice is that there's always been oscillations

There's always been oscilations, true, but the rate o change and trend on those oscilations is the real issue.

[luckys]

Happy to be shown where I can learn more about this different rate of change and trend which sets our current climate change apart from the rest of Earth's history.

[rcxdude]

Almost anywhere where the measurements behind climate science is being discussed. Just pay attention to the x axis on the plots.

[sagacity]

It seems like you won't have any trouble finding that yourself if you really wanted to. This "I'm just asking questions" mode you're in can be considered a type of trolling called "sealioning".

More details here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sealioning

[luckys]

More bad faith interpretations.

Here is at least something tangible. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_surface_temperature#Glo...

On this page can be found the following graphic https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/ca/EP...

On that graphic -- under the heading 'Ice cores (from 800,000 years before present)' in case the link gets truncated -- one can observe regular peaks in temperature that took place before the current one. I'm happy to be explained what caused them, as it could not have been human industrial activity.

That's it. I'm open to dialogue but won't entertain any more lazy dismissals and unfair characterization.