“Top men.” Got it.
If a lot of scientists are saying what you contend, I’d be able to find those articles, too. But I’m not finding them.
If one starts hanging out in the garbage pit zone of the internet, one can read all sorts of tripe. Doesn’t make any of that reading true.
Suggestion to OP: never watch another second of Fox Spews, read the IPCC reports (all of them) from end to end, read teh footnotes & follow them up, and then, once you’re deprogrammed from the BS, get back to us.
Well you haven’t provided any cites so don’t blame anyone here for not taking your point of view seriously.
Any of the dissenting scientific information I’ve come across has ties to the energy industry and conservative lobby groups and think tanks. Groups that clearly have a vested interest in the continued use of fossil fuels. Targeting people who don’t want to deal with the inconveniences transitioning away from fossil fuels will have on their lifestyle.
There is no science outside of what scientists do.
Fossil fuel company shills and kooks.
Who you can’t even cite.
Yes, there is. Consensus is not the same as unanimity.
And just to underscore that. The video is later (1985):
We already have a huge corps of trained scientists researching the environment. This group seems to be VERY concerned about where climate is going, principally around carbon dioxide and its impact on global temperature. Adding 70 million untrained laborers won’t help.
In terms of figuring out what’s going on, think of the Earth as your house. You have to live there, you can’t move, or rent some other place. You have a bunch of professionals saying there is something wrong with the house that may make it VERY uncomfortable to live there in the coming years, leaky roof, bad wiring, crumbling foundation, whatever.
The fact that you can find a few contractors to say “naw, it’s fine” doesn’t change the fact that 10x as many are signaling the exact same problem over and over again, warning you that this will come around to bite you in the ass. You can’t move, when you have massive water damage, or a house fire, or a part of the house you can’t go into because the floor may collapse… you have to live with it, you and your kids and your grandkids, forever, or until you spend 50x as much money to fix it after it all goes to shit, if you can even get that much money.
To respond to your title, hell yes it’s worth 1% of the economy, it’s worth WAY more than 1% because the Earth is the only place humanity can live. We’re all stuck on the dirty wet rock, the only sane move is to make sure we can still live on it 100 years from now.
Okay first of all I have never today or any other time denied climate change. I just believe that suddenly stopping carbon fuels would be more disastrous then what we are facing with climate change in the near future. I also believe as do many scientists that there is an acceptable level of carbon dioxide that may be quite a bit higher than where we are at now possibly not. To gang up on people that want to discuss the other side of the coin goes beyond stupid. We may be forced to live with fossil fuels for another hundred years. I wish someone could show me a site that shows where the world is less healthy today than it was 100 years ago. When scientific research shows that as of right now carbon is a plus to our environment. I know that it has its limits and I know there could be a tipping point of no return. Carbon levels have been trending down over the ages I think science will also verify that. When carbon levels go below some point it becomes harder and harder for life to exist because everything depends on plant life. As far as the environmental corps go, they will be doing a lot more than climate change. Maybe doing a lot more than the climate change
Once again: cites?
Yes, we kinda need carbon to survive as lifeforms on this planet. No one would deny that.
Are you talking about carbon dioxide? As has already been shown, the consensus among scientists is that carbon dioxide levels have not been trending down, but trending up, dramatically, and that, due to the greenhouse effect, carbon dioxide is a key factor in the increase in global temperatures.
No…
And from the same article:
and…
I’ll be interested to see any article you can share that can seriously discuss “the other side” and can show the direction we are going will be a good thing.
In a big picture view, no one cares what you believe because you can’t provide any support your argument. You are waving your hands around without supplying any citations, while others are bringing theirs. Without something to support your assertions they’re meaningless.
Saving the planet, what is it worth to you? That is the OP.
Yes, I too would rather burn my house to the ground with myself and everything and everyone I love or need inside it, rather than lift my pinkie to save myself if it means inconvenience. Jesus F. Christ. Let’s do some more pretendoscience.
Name them
Just. Fucking. Name. Them.
You are only walking on the path made by deniers years ago. And debunked years ago too.
I have never denied climate change, not once that I am aware of. The only thing I might be saying that is controversial is that carbon also has a lot of benefits. As far as I know we are stuck with fossil fuels for some time to come. I am in total agreement that we need to slow down the use as quickly as possible, but I am against penalizing the use of fuel until we are in a position to start switching over. All we hear are the negatives while the positives are enormous, and we have been reaping the benefits for several decades now. I am baffled as to why the question " What are optimum levels of CO2" is considered a controversial or dumb question. I would just like to know the truth good and bad. That should not be controversial. I am very interested in learning about how nature can be used to mitigate excess carbon, nothing controversial there that I can see. I consider it very serious when young people are walking around thinking their earth is doomed when it is not. I also claim that climate change has been weaponized, that may be controversial, but I think it is obvious and it should not be a political issue at all. It is pretty bad when something cannot be discussed in a neutral fashion. These are challenging times with lots of opportunities to discover new clean energy sources. The bio- fuel industry which will probably at some point start becoming more relevant. Works best with the higher carbon levels we are experiencing now, I really want to know how much higher we can safely go.It is not like we have a choice.
Again. Look at the link. Tell me what you see.
Every single fucking day the mainstream news, not the crackpot news or the fox news, is filled with unprecedented climate disasters, happening now or shaping up for tomorrow. These are NOT predictions, they are NOW. Your premise is unmitigatedly bogus. I have no idea why you persist in it.
Are you saying that? Are you saying that lots of people are saying that? Do you have any evidence that holds up to scrutiny that supports it? It’s a particularly vague statement, and there has been lots of data produced in this thread that refutes it. Do you have any training or experience that would allow us to value your opinion?
The optimum levels in a greenhouse are in fact higher than atmospheric concentrations. So, there’s your answer, plants will do better with more carbon dioxide in the air. Easy enough, and done. If that is what your uncited scientists are saying, then they are correct, as far as that is concerned.
Now, the question is what are the optimum levels for maintaining the kind of environment that we would like to live in, and the answer to that is lower than the current atmospheric concentrations. There are no serious scientists who disagree on this point.
Rapid uncontrolled changes to the climate are bad. Regardless of what the optimum climate is, if humanity endeavors to achieve that optimum, it needs to happen safely and gradually, not via an uncontrolled dump of CO2 into the atmosphere.
What we are doing is climate engineering, but we don’t have a plan or a goal or a way to walk it back. We’re sitting in a car, blindfolded, foot firmly on the gas, and you’re arguing that maybe we’re headed the right direction.
I would like to hear about those positives and benefits. Can you please outline what they are? Just a short bullet list will do. From whatever you have been reading.
I don’t think anyone here is saying we are doomed. However, what most are saying is that there is plenty of evidence human activity is a major cause of a problem now and in the future, and we ought to be doing something about that problem to lessen it’s impacts. And that denying the problem isn’t helping matters.
The Earth is not doomed. Even humanity isn’t really doomed.
But our way of life, that’s probably doomed.