Why do you think there is a great divide in the view of Co2 induced climate change?

Question

Nobel prize recipients, many PhD's in various professions to come together and say..."Co2" hysteria is just that... hysteria... climate cycles not related to co2 and in general, co2 is helpful It's not easy to buy off people to lie... in large groups, not when their lives, offsprings lives, and careers are on the line. Whom would live a lie so long, in vast numbers? Some do not believe the Co2 "science" is the conclusion...

https://co2coalition.org/media_category/educational/

Such group wrote letter thanking President Trump for removing USA from the Paris Climate Accords. Of course, they received some funding from fossil industry... but do you think they would lie incessantly and put their reputations on the line, if they were just lying to get money?

Other opposing groups do find Co2 "science" as causing terrible life threatening climate change.

NASA... which is a govt organization, and thus, can be politically charged as well. They must believe what they are saying...

https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/carbon-dioxide/?_hsenc=p2ANqtz-8HpRVv9oVuSCF0VZQsQUZzqFhGtkLyw06Pme5RT0S-5vbMKKeT7887JYALC3WjAsIKVkac

Mere mortals and less educated are left in the lurch as to align with the political affiliation.

Don't you think science should be able to be more definitive in drawing conclusions?

Why do you think there is a great divide in the view of Co2 induced climate change?

China's vote seems to be..."we like carbon..."

https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/chinas-coal-country-full-steam-ahead-with-new-power-plants-despite-climate-2023-11-30/

NamerOfStars · Accepted Answer

How, exactly, would science "draw conclusions" on this matter? Do they have another equivalent planet to compare Earth to? Back in Galileo's day, the same process of scientific deduction said that Galileo was WRONG- if the Earth were orbiting the sun, then there would be parallax shift in the fixed stars. There wasn't- so either the Earth and the entire rest of the universe was orbiting the sun, or it wasn't orbiting it at all. The answer is, in retrospect, obvious- there IS parallax shift, but the telescopes of the 17th century couldn't pick it up. But the scientific method said Galileo was wrong.

We see the same problem here- and the idiotic politicization, too. We know for a fact that human activity can affect the world; look at all the species we've wiped out. We know that we can affect the environment- look at acid rain. We know that the planet's climate periodically shifts on its own, without human intervention, and not always on a predictable schedule or in predictable ways. We also don't have anywhere else we can live. Add it all up, and prudent caution is the logical course of action.

But here's the problem: the spectrum of plausible anthropogenic climate change extends way, WAY beyond global warming, which extends beyond the greenhouse effect, of which carbon dioxide is only a tiny part. It pales in comparison to methane, which is NOTHING compared to sulfur hexafluoride, the most potent greenhouse gas known to man. And what's the primary source of released SF6? The manufacture of solar cells. Every single cell produced (not panel, CELL) releases tiny amounts of SF6. It's pretty insignificant on its own, but the popular "make solar power the primary electricity source of the western world" lobby is mathematically worse than going back to COAL would be. Things could be improved- vastly- by increasing lifespan and recycling of solar cells, and a lot of the problem possibly alleviated (and I stress possibly) by assembling panels off-planet, but we're a good century or so away from being able to do that.

And yet, do you hear environmentalists talking about widespread adoption of nuclear power? Or geothermal? Completely tap Yellowstone, and that's all of humanity's current energy (not electrical, ENERGY) needs met, as they currently stand. Of course, you can't do that, both for practical and legal reasons, but there are other supervolcanoes. No, it's all solar and wind, wind and solar, and how the West needs to cut back on GHG production, because we're despoiling the planet- even though India and China each dwarf our combined production.

The other problem is the insistence on sticking to debunked theories. The line that all of Florida will be underwater by 2010? Yeah, news flash: I'm not typing this on a submarine. If sea levels have indeed risen, it's either not by anywhere near that much, or land levels have risen, too (somehow). Of course, that could be as simple as getting the year wrong; a basic error in math- but they're not even willing to admit that; it's the same numbers from the same books, even though those specific interpretations are provably wrong.

It's not hard to see the political angle of it all- which is doubly frustrating, because it's not a mathematical mistake means the whole idea is incorrect, and the environmentalist industry- and that's exactly what it is, an industry- crying wolf for the past few decades has destroyed the credibility of the idea of humanity fucking the planet up. The unquestioning opposition to genetically engineering plants and animals that might combat desertification, help replenish soil, more efficiently absorb soil nutrients and stave off malnutrition or even starvation in the Third World doesn't help. I suppose it's logically consistent with telling them they can't industrialize their economies, but DAMN, is it cold-hearted.

sawno · Accepted Answer

Its because the arguments don't hold up, there are counter arguments but the main stream media is trying to push a narrative since that narrative is insanely good for both profit and control. Those who look further than the main stream can easily find institutions like clintel. org painting a different picture.

Truth is that there currently is not enough CO2 in the world, reducing CO2 is as ridiculous for plants as reducing oxygen is for us. More CO2 in the world would be immensely helpful, and the increase of CO2 has lead to a greening effect. More trees and better crop yields are good for us in turn, more Oxygen and more food.

Considering the two primary gasses of life are Oxygen and CO2 and the CO2 emissions used to be higher do you really think that would cause the planet to heat up as much as they claim?

The answer is an obvious no, the whole narrative was based on a fearmongering prediction of the worst case scenario in the models. But in reality we are at the very bottom of them if not better and we are totally fine.

So no, CO2 is just a means to control your liberty and to force trough an insanely profitable energy transition. Thats also very easily proven in the Netherlands, they are removing our ability to use natural gas because we need to transition for the climate... to burning tree's. Meanwhile Germany is going to introduce a transition to natural gas. Why? Because the Netherlands already had an extremely high end gas network so you can't transition to something that already works great.

Its time more people wake up because this whole transition agenda is actually worse for the planet. Your spending a lot of unnecessary resources to then pollute the planet with things like solar panels which do not degrade and have a lifespan of 25 years and large wind turbines which also don't last any longer, also don't degrade and chop birds to death.

If the proposed transition was sane, to for example a Thorium reactor I wouldn't mind it and be fully on board. Going to MORE EFFICIENT energy is a good thing for everyone, cheaper electricity for us, less pollution on the planet and less co2 for those where it still matters. But more CO2 in the world is a good thing, we increase the CO2 levels with fertilizer in the ground and in greenhouses for a reason.

Jessica405 · Accepted Answer

I am always amazed by how many people are a "Nero. Supposedly fiddled while Rome burned. In denial.

It is quite easy to devise experiments that prove CO2, methane, freon and other "greenhouse" gases act as an insulator. The radiation from the sun can pass easily through them. However, the lower frequency radiation that is produced as a reflection by the earth, cannot. Just like sticking an extra on your bed when you are cold.

Yes, there are natural variations in temperature, rainfall, winds etc, but we cannot ignore man made effects resulting from industrial processes.

WhitneySnow · Accepted Answer

Scientists who don’t believe in climate change are almost invariably aligned with and funded by the political right (or other authoritarian regimes such as China)

tremendousfern · Answer

Pollution and anthropogenic climate change are real. What's not real is the "solutions" offered by elites living in beachfront houses who fly in private jets to Davos annually to brainstorm how everybody else needs to sacrifice to make their own lives more convenient. Or how we need to turn it into another way for the elites to make more money by trading "carbon credits".

The biggest drivers of pollution are the corporations and industries that those people own - but you better believe you won't see them inconvenienced in the slightest to change that. No, instead it will be everybody else who will have to give up everything "for the good of the planet".

The elephant in the room that nobody wants to address is that the actions required to stop and reverse the damage done to the environment would put an end to the massive globalized economy that we've all become accustomed to and that our leaders are dependent on for their immense levels of wealth and power. It would mean returning to a much more localized economy, fewer amenities for everybody, and actively working to reuse much of what we produce.

loveslongnails · Answer

Some things should be self-evident. Remember the ozone layer hole? Yes, it was real, and dangerous, and by banning the use of fluorocarbons worldwide, the layer repaired itself. Well shit boys and girls, we live in a "globe" with an atmosphere that's dependent on certain chemical balances. If you exponentially increase population, CO2 production, increase the use of fossil fuels and other gases and simultaneously decrease oxygen producing agents like ocean plankton (where 50% of Earth's oxygen supply comes from), due to rising water temperatures, you're going to have a problem both in the seas and in the air.

Hate to bring this up to all those "Nobel Laureat's", but how much time have any of you spent studying the oceans? You see, there was this guy named Jacques Cousteau who not only co-invented the aqualung (SCUBA) but spent much of his life study the ocean and its effects on life both marine and land based. 50 years ago he warned governments about what was happening to ocean temperatures, the world's reef systems and marine food supply. He warned how that would affect plankton production and micro-organism life all over the world.

Nobody paid much attention to him. It would have cost too much, and it wasn't profitable to make changes. That was one part of the picture. Combined with deforestation and a host of other factors, the world is facing a choice; take care of your environment and sustain it, or don't and ignore it, and just move on like a cancer as Mr. Smith suggests in the Matrix while you find a small number of scientists to support your denial.

Lionman95 · Answer

There are many people that have interest in this question. It´s a question of power and money. " ... but do you think they would lie incessantly and put their reputations on the line, if they were just lying to get money?" 100% sure they write a little paper that according to what they found CO2 has little impact on the climate after receiving let say 3 million US Dollars for their department. That´s science, too. They invented the numbers they based the paper but who cares if the President is for them. The whole science department might be against but those scientists don´t have a lobby.
Scientits are completely depending on third party investments some break all their ethnical standards for the right amount of money just to ensure they can keep working.
The reason it´s so unclear is that scientists make assumptions of the future based on data of the past.

WindAtMyBack · Answer

In science there are ALWAYS people who disagree. With millions of scientists in the world, of course you can easily find a large number of descenting views. That's to be expected with any science. It means nothing.

You can always find these kind of people, who will give a convincing scientific reason why they disagree. That doesn't mean they are right.

Sometimes a minority descenting view turns out to be right. But to assume that the minority is right when the large majority disagree is just stupid. If the minority turns out to be right, eventually the majority will come around and agree. But until that time, it's a good idea to go with the consensus.

genericname85 · Answer

the issue isn't the science. the issue is the media utilizing science in ways that science isn't meant to be used for. framing and agenda setting is not scientific.

co2 is not a problem at all. if the co2 concentration raises, more plants will grow and creat a natural equilibrium. it's already happening as we speak. like that's officially a fact that all these climate fear mongerers are ignoring. like there has been a 5% increasse in foliage on the globe in the last 20 years. that's HUGE and nobody talks about it.. guess cause you can't legitimate authorian legislation with that fact.

and even in this entire co2 debate is bullshit too. like why does nobody ever get the idea to fucking plant more trees. instead all they come up with is actually blowing even more co2 into the atmosphere.

OfMiceandMen · Answer

CO2 has always fluctuated on earth naturally, that's why we have had cold (last glaciation about 10K year ago) and hot cycles (for instance the dinosaur era).

Undoubtedly, we are not helping the cycle by pumping more anthropogenic CO2 into the atmosphere, but there really is no way for scientist to partition the amount of CO2 we are contributing to the amount that occurs naturally.

All of the data we have is just this tiny blip in a much bigger picture, so to say unequivocally that we are the reason why things are heating up may not be entirely true. We may just be seeing a tiny rise in something that has been already on the rise for the last 10k years.

Anonymous · Answer

The determining factor is the ice cores in the arctic and the Antarctic, they show regular cycles of global warming and global cooling, approximately every 20,000 years for hundreds of millions of years into the past.

The time we are living in is approximately 20,000 years since the last cooling cycle, right on target for "climate change."

However, a few years, or even decades, of temperatures higher or lower than normal does not constitute climate change. In 200 years, we will know if this is it or not, or just periodic changes in weather.

There is no evidence any of it is caused by man-made factors, and the ice cores clearly prove this. They are just using this Algore rhetoric for political divisiveness.

FunkyMonkee · Answer

Because IT DOESN'T EXIST!!
It's actually making deserts green, again!! How is that a BAD thing?
We need air to live; plants MAKE air! Plants need Co2 to live!! We make Co2!! If we stop making it, THEY die!! If THEY die, WE die!! WHY is that so hard to understand?

RavVid · Answer

It is not possible to have much of a discussion in a short format (such as here).

I think most of the problem lie in the word belief. Normally one doesn't believe in science. Gravity either does or does not exist. Normally one doesn't believe in engineering - bridges stay up or they don't.

There is a very large lobby that, amounts to an industry, that is promoting this. A lot of the protesters are very ignorant but they are part of that lobby

There is a smaller lobby opposed but it is still a lobby.

What we have is science done by lobby group. Lobby groups are also inherently political bodies. Science by lobby groups and politicians has no chance of working. That is the crux of the issue.

TommyMountainFigure · Answer

I think it is the Religion vs Big Bang Theory or Nature vs Nurture debate. Nobody has every disproven with any great certainty a definitive answer to whether or not these events are Natural or man made (Other than we are making Global Warming happen quicker)

DryGermanGuy · Answer

There isn‘t, at least not in countries where the cooler heads prevail instead of those wanting to politicize every stupid detail of every little topic. And here actually 95% of the climate researchers actually agree.

Astarlessnightsky · Answer

There is no other topic where so many scientist worldwide agree on, Co2 (and other greenhouse gases like methane) are changing the climate at an apocalyptic pace and its man made.

The only devide is between the rich who are responsible for the majority of the co2 emissions and the poor who are paying the price.

As well the generations of kids who are bound to be the ones suffering from it and old people who say fuck it, i will be dead anyway.

Anonymous · Answer

That has got to be the silliest post ever. It's well established by hundreds of studies that man made C02 is causing climate change.

e. g.
https://onlinelibrary. wiley. com/doi/pdf/10.1111/j.2153-3490.1956. tb01206. x - original theory of climate change

https://www. pnas. org/doi/10.1073/pnas.0812721106 - shows warming by climate change is largely irreversible.

https://www. science. org/doi/10.1126/science.1103618
https://iopscience. iop. org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ac2966
https://iopscience. iop. org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ac2774 - studies on the consensus opinion that humans are causing climate change with their C02 emissions.

David94358 · Answer

the problem is that the global warming debate is been taken over by politics and environmental extremists so there is not much to trust with them.

I mean the fact that it was changed from global warming what extra Co2 will do to climate change should be a red flag to everyone. Its hard to blame every weather event on global warming.. but easy if its "climate change"

Twalli · Answer

Corporations hired scientists to study this when it was first brought up. The scientists all hypothesized that CO2 was not actually causing a greenhouse effect. They all found that it actually was. The conclusion was reached by studies funded by companies that wanted to prove that they weren't creating the greenhouse effect. So even though there was an interest in proving no link a link was proven.

zagor · Answer

Because acknowledging that what humans are doing may lead to our downfall is inconvenient and it is much easier to ignore the signs and just keep doing what we are doing.

Snakeyes7 · Answer

In science, disagreements are a good thing because it keeps the studies we do honest. It is right in the scientific method.

I have been saying this for climate change, for covid and for all this gender politics. Having a heretic class in the scientific community completely ruins the point.

AngryCarl · Answer

There's no great divide, just misinformation and people who don't know what they're talking about.

FreyaRed · Answer

Because it's an ideology supported by pseudo science. 98% of CO2 will be bond and produced by plankton in oceans that is depending on sunlight intensity.

Dongie · Answer

It's a great way to embezzle money by the democrats

Why do you think there is a great divide in the view of Co2 induced climate change?

Most Helpful Opinions

What Girls & Guys Said

Why do you think there is a great divide in the view of Co2 induced climate change?

Most Helpful Opinions

What Girls & Guys Said

We're glad to see you liked this post.