Yes. However, these sorts of statistics are always open to question.
I’m not denying climate change at all not in the least bit. I’m totally acknowledging the changes will happen. Some evidence suggests that the burning of fossil fuels is probably the most important contribution that man has made to Earth. A lot of the information we’re getting is politically motivated and politically funded. There are a lot of gray areas here but identity politics have kept away from the general public.
What on earth are you talking about? Your next post needs to cite some actual research, or a reasonable conclusion is that you are simply buying into crackpot pseudoscience.
Again, please present some evidence for this ridiculous conspiracy theory that is apparently leading you to reject the scientific consensus. What does identity politics have to do with any of this?
You may have a point, if you are algae.
It’s quite likely that algae will do much better with a high carbon dioxide content and warmer temperatures.
If you are pretty much anything else, the changes are not so likely to be good for you.
But please, present your evidence.
And please present any evidence at all to back up this claim as well.
Though if your cites to back up your claims come from Diatoms for a Better Environment, we should look upon them with great skepticism.
Stay out of my daydreams!
A lot of people are walking around believing that carbon dioxide is some kind of poisonous gas in our atmosphere. And in reality plant life can’t survive without it. No life can survive. Carbon levels have been very slowly diminishing over the ages as a sources that produce carbon dioxide have been decreasing. One thing I can’t find when I research is what would optimum levels be I can’t seem to find anything on that. I do find a lot of scientists who believe that could be much much higher than it is now. And still be beneficial. I just believed that everybody would benefit from unbiased information which we’re not getting
Not everything they did would be climate change related although that would be a very large part of it. And I think most importantly it could be a very enriching experience for a lot of people who will never otherwise experience such a thing. It could also produce a lot of income that would help to finance itself. Going on and
A lot of people use the phrase “a lot of people” when they have nothing to back up their assertions.
And no life can survive without water, either. But if you stick your head into a bucket of water three times and take it out twice, you’re in trouble.
Anyway, OP has cited zero evidence or research to support his ridiculous conspiracy theories and scientifically ignorant claims. There’s nothing substantive to express any opinion on here, so I think I’m done unless this gets moved to the Pit where it belongs.
I love this post and want to father its children.
Sorry, what’s “biased” about the IPCC?
Everything they do that isn’t climate change related (and by that, I mean the killing fossil fuel executives and shareholders thing) is just so much pissing in the wind. And the wind is a CO2-driven greenhouse-enhanced hurricane.
Moderator Note
If you don’t like the OP, there’s no need for you to participate in the thread. This comes across as both a bit of a threadshit and an attack on the OP.
If you think the OP is lacking in reality, then point out what is lacking, in a constructive manner.
Those people are morons.
What the people who actually know what they are talking about are concerned with in regards to carbon dioxide is that it is a “greenhouse gas”. Which is to say carbon dioxide traps and emits radiant energy from the sun and creates a warming effect (much like a greenhouse). The more carbon dioxide, the warmer the Earth gets. The warmer the Earth gets, the more we experience bad stuff like crazy weather patterns, higher sea levels from melting glaciers and ice caps, larger and more frequent storms, desertification, and destruction of natural habitats.
What is actually poisonous is the other chemical byproducts from burning the fossil fuels that create carbon dioxide.
I’m up for unbiased debate as much as the next person, but pretty much all of the contrary positions against climate change sound like complete bullshit to me:
- Vague or unsubstantiated claims that climate change or increased levels of carbon are actually “good”
- Claims that petroleum somehow continuously renews itself so we will never run out
- Assertations of “political bias” (like they are Galileo trying to prove the Earth actually moves around the sun).
- Pointing out how great plastics and automobiles and other petroleum-based technologies are (as if we don’t know how great they are besides the fact that they are poisoning the environment, causing climate change, and are made from a finite resource).
You threw a lot of things in there that don’t even belong in the conversation. But you seem to think that science has come to the consensus that carbon dioxide is leading us towards a disaster and no science has not come to that consensus many scientists have! And there are also many scientists who disagree with them so there is no consensus whether you like to think so or not
Name and cite them then
Not going to name and site them simply because I don’t write them down I spent three or four hours a week reading up on these things and I jump around a lot. I guess I could spend a day preparing sources and maybe at some point I will but my primary purpose is just a hopefully encourage people to look at a different viewpoint. One of the primary things I find interesting right now is a nitrogen carbon balance, the additional carbon in the atmosphere has caused plants to grow faster depleting nitrogen sources in the soil. I can’t seem to find anything on how long this would take to correct itself. I have found a few things that suggest it will correct itself but they don’t talk about how long it would take. But there’s a lot of science going on right now mainly in the agricultural field what are you doing research on nitrogen fixing bacteria and many of these researchers have noted that that this might be useful in restoring the carbon nitrogen balance to our forest. The forests of the world are far too big to manually manipulate. Only something like introduced bacteria that could spread on its own if you stand a chance of bringing this back into balance. I don’t really feel like arguing these things I just wish people would look at it from both sides there’s a good chance that we might be stuck with fossil fuel for longer than we hope and if that’s the case we might have to learn to live with it to some degree.
Thank you for confirming you have no sites.
So these could be reputable scientist or paste-eating morons. Do you see why this is a poor debating style?
Longer than that. I had the general idea in the early 1970’s of what was going to happen without major change. I was fifteen when I first knew that without humanity truly changing course we were going to kill the planet. And gosh, look. I wasn’t prescient. Lots of people were saying it then. Remember the first Earth Day? That’s how long it has been readily available to the general public. They just closed their eyes and ears.