Nature World News: Scientists Confirmed Earth’s ‘Stabilizing Responses’ Keeps Global Temperatures in Check. https://www.natureworldnews.com/art...responses-keeps-global-temperatures-check.htm
https://twitter.com/PGDynes/status/1594813266479677441 "Carbon emissions during the Anthropocene are occurring 10 times faster than the Permian mass extinction 250 million years ago. What does that mean?...well 90% of all life went extinct during that period so we may want to tread carefully here." susan suntree "CO2 was at 400+ ppm during the mid-Pliocene (3 mya). By 2 mya CO2 dropped to the 220 ppm range and stayed there until about 1790, the beginning of the Industrial Revolution. In other words, it took about 3 million years to move from 420 to 220. We have moved to 420+ ppm in 220yrs" https://unfccc.int/news/global-co2-emissions-rebounded-to-their-highest-level-in-history-in-2021 Of course, Science is not uniform but still, they warn us like this: https://eos.org/articles/how-modern-emissions-compare-to-ancient-extinction-level-events "They found that a single pulse of activity—the eruption of 100,000 cubic kilometers of magma over some 500 years—could have had a significant impact on the Triassic climate, much as our current emissions are drastically reshaping our world today. The entire CAMP event would have released roughly 100,000 gigatons of carbon dioxide—enough to warm the world by 10°C to 15°C. Put another way, Ernst said, “if we’re talking about going up 2° to 3° over a hundred years, we’re 20% of the way to a mass extinction.” “There are countless variables that should be taken into account to foresee future climate change scenarios and that we are not able to constrain for the end-Triassic world,” Capriolo cautions. “However, as geoscientists, we warn that the currently ongoing carbon dioxide emissions are similar to those that led to the end-Triassic mass extinction.”"
Richard D. Wolff Capitalism rewards enterprises that maximize profits & punishes those that fail to do so. So of course Exxon publicly denied the truth (how burning fossil fuels damages the environment) it knew for many decades. Profit-driven capitalism is the problem. https://www.democracynow.org/2023/1...ating_with_breathtaking_accuracy_in_the_1970s Exxon Scientists Privately Predicted Global Heating with “Breathtaking” Accuracy in the 1970s HEADLINEJAN 13, 2023 A new study in the journal Science confirms Exxon was fully aware of the link between fossil fuel emissions and global heating but spent decades refuting and obscuring the science in order to make maximum profits. The report finds that Exxon — as early as the 1970s — predicted with “breathtaking” accuracy the disastrous climate path that is now wreaking havoc around the globe.
Context? Here: Search for a pdf file: Rutger Bregman "Humankind" Likewise... "Utopia for realists" OceanofPDF.com_Utopia_for_Realists__The_Case_for_a_Univer_-_Rutger_Bregman.pdf The billionaire dickheads' agenda ripped apart, head-on:
How temperature-dependent silicate weathering acts as Earth’s geological thermostat https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.add2922
The position you are parroting is overly dishonest. A fair calculation of pollution and resources consumption must be calculated per person, not per nation. India + China alone are almost half the world's population This list is from 2016 but gives the idea https://www.worldometers.info/co2-emissions/co2-emissions-by-country/ china polluted twice the US, but people from china are almost 5x the US people
One must also think historically, as to how it got here, where it started and what are the causes - and not many people have the cojones to get to grips with that... The UK - as small as it is, started before all with the industrial revolution and boy have they been smokin' a lot of that dark side s**t... And also, as just stated, shouldn't those who per capita (Muricans) guzzle up crazily, give up most of their luxurious lifestyles? If we all are to live like 'Muricans, we would need some 5,5 Earths, guys - no can do sustain that!!!
My two cents worth on climate change... Man has little to no effect. To back up my view please refer to this site: https://www.climate4you.com/ It is a world temperature site with lots of data and graphs. Start with the "big picture" link and scroll though the data and graphs. It is very well documented where the data comes from and how the charts and graphs were derived. Next on left side click on "climate refections" a kind of summery. Here i quote: ------ Global temperature has not risen since 1998. The models relied upon by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) had not projected this recent absence of global warming, as well as a number of other phenomena, such as, e.g., cooling in Antarctica (Doran et al. 2002), the absence of ocean warming since 2003 (Lyman et al. 2006; Gouretski and Koltermann 2007), and that the Pacific Decadal Oscillation recently changed from its warming to its cooling phase. The present period since 1998 with no global temperature increase thereby has caused some embarrassment for the notion that burning of fossil fuel causes a marked increase of global temperatures. The embarrassment is becoming more and more pronounced as the atmospheric concentration of CO2 continues to increase. As increasing global temperature 1978-1998 was the main driver for concern about future climate, one would have expected this new temperature development to be broadly welcomed as a good development. Somewhat surprisingly, this has apparently not been the case. The lack of warming since 1998 has instead been ignored or defensively explained as being without significance. Some have simply chosen to refocus on other issues without direct relation to air temperature, such as, e.g., Arctic (not Antarctic) sea ice or retreating glaciers. A widespread defensive reaction to the recent temperature development has been that of stressing the importance of natural multi-annual and decadal temperature variations to explain the lack of warming. Previously, this was not a widespread line of argumentation among people supportive of the notion of significant anthropogenic warming: In contrast, observed temperature increases were usually presented as indications of anthropogenic warming, and definitely not as the result of natural multi-annual and decadal temperature variations. This way of asymmetrical reasoning is interesting from a psychological point of view, and is usually considered characteristic for groupthink. ------ How you feel about climate change does not change the data, pro or con, the numbers don't lie. Global temperatures have not rose since 1998 regardless of rising CO2. Climate will continue to change and man can do little to influence it. Just my two cents....
Nonsense - see the above relevant post of mine, where you have the data and much better reasoning behind the interpretation of that data... Yours is uninformed and rather confused and messed up, sorry... Or listen to oil corporations' scientists, whose report for sociopathically put in a deep bunker and covered with cement...
In order to save our planet from exploding as a consequence of global warming, fossil fuel-powered vehicles must be phased out!