The climate change movement: July 28, 1995 to August 14, 2020 RIP

[sgtlethargic]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

As freebeard pointed out, there is no consensus here at all. The question lacks specificity, also. Kinda like asking why people believe that eating, especially meat, isn't a health problem. Everything is assumed not to be a problem unless a specific problem is alleged.


My biggest complaint (and I'm not accusing you of this) is the deliberately imprecise and divisive use of "The Environment"; as if there is only 1, and it somehow magically encompasses flourishing for every imaginable creature and plant.


For example, "The environment" for various extremophiles is absolutely inhospitable for most other creatures. "The environment" for mosquitos in my house is inhospitable because I don't leave stagnant water for reproduction, or easy ingress/egress. It's a fantastic environment for me, though.

"The Environment" is a fictitious concept used as a religious construct by anti-humanists to fool people into believing any impact to Gaia's pristine nature is sinful. Somehow humanity is the only creature not part of Gaia's perfect creation.

That isn't an argument against preserving or improving various environments for various other species (environmentalism), only that I reject Environmentalism as a religion. I'm a humanist, and that means placing the highest value on human environments for the short, medium, and long term.

It seems that the contrarians are the religious ones.

[redpoint5]

Originally Posted by sgtlethargic

What on Earth?

Yes, on Earth.

800,000 years ago CO2 concentration reached a historic low of about 180 ppm which is just barely enough to support plant life. By some miracle, the earth warmed, glaciers retreated, and CO2 concentration rose to 280 ppm. Still not a great level for plant growth, but not as close to the brink of oblivion as before.





At 400 ppm, we're beginning to see global greening. A more ideal concentration might be double that.

Originally Posted by sgtlethargic

It seems that the contrarians are the religious ones.

Which are the contrarians? Doesn't matter, because you're absolutely correct, as I stated that humanity is constituted for religion. I merely pointed out that coercing others to practice a particular flavor tends to leave a bad taste in others mouths.

[freebeard]

[2 minute delta to redpoint5]

Maybe you guys should hold a climate catastrophe contrarian conference. You could call it COPout23.

Else we could call it ' The climate change movement: July 28, 1995 to August 14, 2020 RIP'.

What on Earth?

It's upthread somewheres.

https://www.agrowtronics.com › how-much-co₂-do-plants-need
How Much CO₂ Do Plants Need? - AGrowTronics - IIoT For Growing
The maximum CO₂ (saturation point) for most plants falls between 1,000 to 1,300 ppm. Here's a quick look at the average, minimum, and maximum CO₂ levels for most plants: Minimum for survival: 150 ppm Threshold for stunted growth: 200 ppm Typical ambient CO₂: 410 ppm Ranges for growth enhancement: 1,000 to 1,500 ppm

https://earth.org › data_visualization › a-brief-history-of-co2
A Graphical History of Atmospheric CO2 Levels Over Time
As a point of reference, pre-industrial CO2 levels were around 280 parts per million (ppm) and today, we stand near 420 ppm. Become a Citizen of Earth and start taking action to fight this climate crisis If you act you will feel hopeful JOIN THE MOVEMENT TODAY

It seems that the contrarians are the religious ones.

Just like not collecting stamps is a hobby.

[redpoint5]

Originally Posted by freebeard

Just like not collecting stamps is a hobby.

I LOLed.

[sgtlethargic]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

Yes, on Earth.

800,000 years ago CO2 concentration reached a historic low of about 180 ppm which is just barely enough to support plant life.

Oh look, you're answering for freebeard. Did you two come to a consensus via Zerohedge and/or the comic strip anti-climate anti-scientist?

It's a good thing that burning fossil fuels inadvertently saved humanity from the alleged impending plantapocalypse ... from 800,000 years ago. So, we should burn more fossil fuels so that we can get to the alleged greenhouse sweet spot, sooner.

[sgtlethargic]

Originally Posted by freebeard

[2 minute delta to redpoint5]
Just like not collecting stamps is a hobby.

Whoever smelt it, delta'd it.

You guys have a 30-page anti-climate anti-science thread that you've woven on an environmental website. Have you considered taking up a more productive hobby, like needlepoint?

[redpoint5]

Originally Posted by sgtlethargic

Did you two come to a consensus via Zerohedge and/or the comic strip anti-climate anti-scientist?

I don't know what zerohedge is, and the only "anti" thing I've ever looked up is antimatter.

It's a good thing that burning fossil fuels inadvertently saved humanity from the alleged impending plantapocalypse from 800,000 years ago

I don't believe it's clear what caused the warming which allowed humanity to flourish, which is why I used "miracle" as a stand-in for knowledge.

So, we should burn more fossil fuels so that we can get to the alleged greenhouse sweet spot, sooner.

Directionally correct, but I'd modify it slightly to "the human flourishing sweet spot". That encompases the flourishing of plantlife as human wellbeing is dependent on it.

[sgtlethargic]

Quote:

The CO2 Coalition is a nonprofit advocacy organization in the United States founded in 2015.[1] Its claims conflict with the scientific consensus on climate change and it spreads misinformation about climate change.[2]


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CO2_Coalition

[redpoint5]

Originally Posted by sgtlethargic

Quote:

The CO2 Coalition is a nonprofit advocacy organization in the United States founded in 2015.[1] Its claims conflict with the scientific consensus on climate change and it spreads misinformation about climate change.[2]


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CO2_Coalition

Quote:

"Wikipedia is a nonprofit founded in 2001 in the United States. It relies on regular dopes to create digital encyclopedia pages, many of which contain misinformation about any number of subjects."

ref: myself- a for profit individual founded in 1981...

Satire aside, appeal to authority is a logical fallacy. We can take a fact and evaluate the veracity, but to simply say we don't trust Bob because he's a Red Sox fan doesn't make any sense.

[sgtlethargic]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

Quote:

... appeal to authority is a logical fallacy.

I didn't appeal to an authority. Actually, it's the climate contrarians that use and abuse this logical fallacy by denying the scientific consensus, and by appealing to your climate experts.