The missing piece

Why don't more people on this board, and particularly those in favour of Trump's tarrifs, embrace the environmental perspective. For example, reducing trade (by buying american) reduces CO2 from shipping. Instead rightoids cling to big oil talking points and obfuscation around climate change.

hur dur there's nothing that can be done

fuck off defeatists. do you really want the world to be an even worse place to live? not to mention the refugees that are going to be on the move due to environmental factors

we won't let them in

already struggling enough as it is to keep people from showing up at the border/trying to get in illegally..

Faggot

ad hominem

That's not ad hominim, faggot.

I'm for protecting the environment sure but human made climate change is bullshit

Ad homosexual

ur right, it was sound and valid reasoning
yah, yah is what I've been hearing on this board for years, and yet the earth continues to warm up, corals continue to bleach, glacier continue to melt, etc.

inb4 "it's the sun"
picrel

I'm more concerned about deforestation, desertification and topsoil loss than CO2, desu

Bump for muh science

why not be concerned over all of them?

gfr.wri.org/latest-analysis-deforestation-trends

welcome

inb4 "it's plant food."

The balanced chemical equation for photosynthesis is: 6CO2 + 6H2O + Sunlight C6H12O6 + 6O2
I.e. no increased use by plants of CO2 unless more H2O

Picrel

most climate scientists are not saying "wait until we do more research," they're saying "act now" (and have been for decades).

Yup, unless you're growing more trees to sequester the CO2 there will just be more in the cycle overall once it's released from oil/gas. Once the Siberian permafrost starts to melt, which it is already, we're fucked and there's nothing we can do to stop it. On the plus side, lots of wogs will die.

You lost me at "favour", faggot. Fuck off back to plebbit.

by act they mean give us more money and power

why not be concerned over all of them?

Chink trinkets represent a larger hurdle than I'm willing to jump, so I do what I can.

well at least you're not denying the mechanics involved. but scientists aren't really saying we're beyond the point of no return, are they?

Because theyre narcissistic psychopaths. With an apocolypse pathology and savior complex

believing the people who keep CHANGING the past data, to make the new data look warmer

HERP DERP

About to pump and dump like a shitcoin

i'm a leaf, it's how we spell the word m8
nah. some of them have been saying build nuclear, other focus more on other tech

For millennia

That's literally fucking nothing.
In every Ice Age the CO2 level was way above that line.
And yet it causes global warming supposedly
Someone is fucking lying

I believe people like Svante Arrhenius who predicted climate would warm in 1898 based on his knowledge of the mechanics involved in releasing C02 from fossil fuels.

see

you're incorrect. we were in an ice age up until about 12,000 years ago. look at the graph again.

Seems they're on the cusp or in denial since the warming targets keep getting pushed forward. In my opinion we're fucked but that shouldn't stop us making an effort. Each year the rate of CO2 output increases which is scary.

OP and his retard graphs dont go back enough and its ON PURPOSE to create fear where there should be none.

post the full data set spanning millions of years also kys

it's true we've passed the 1.5C and it's probably to late to avoid 2C. But I get frustrated when I see how fast China is moving to EVs while the west drags their feet.

this one is even easier to read (but doesnt have the temp data on it like the other)

CO2 has been way higher

Temperature trends over millions of years have nothing to do with temperature trends today.

Nobody's trying to argue this is the hottest the Earth has ever been.

what's the source of this graph, which is pretty much illegible? the one I posted comes from NASA.

bud, CO2 is above 420ppm now. your graph is wrong

Holy shit I Just learned the world started in 1880.

no one said it started in 1880 (which makes your argument a straw man); that's the baseline due to largest increases in CO2 occurring since then

earth is perfectly capable of swinging value by 100 ppm naturally

rise of 60 is conserning

at least they use data from 800,000 years ago, massive 0.02% of earths history.

Guess your graph is a straw man since that's all it shows then. Good catch!

and how many 100s of thousands of years have we been practicing agriculture?