Malibu said:

---

Your framing of the argument seems a bit off to me. If global warming, therefore Marxism and since Marxism is a bad idea, therefore we should ignore any potential global warming. The concentration of CO2 and its environmental impacts are independent of any policy solution, it's just a physics problem. I think we should start there. I also think dismissing a few degrees change as no big deal is probably unwise in a system as complex as global climate.

I am with you with a 'and therefore, tax oil companies and immediately switch to unreliable solutions' is peak idiocy and will do more to make the problem worse than better, but a sober look at a nuclear future and a grid with a renewable mix is not liberal alarmism and lunacy.

---

Malibu said:

---

A more nuanced take:
Burning fossil fuels at the scale we are doing so is releasing quantities of CO2 at the scale massively more than the Earth would naturally release on its own. CO2 is not the one magical molecule we can put in the atmosphere at whatever quantities we want with no second and third order consequences. Current average temperatures are being exceeded year over year for recorded history, and declaring the hypothesis that human caused CO2 additions in the atmosphere has something to do with that, as models and science predicted it would, shouldn't cause thoughtful people to erupt in a deep belly laughter for being absurd liberal propaganda.

Yes, someone selling a fatalistic picture of Florida being underwater in 10 years was selling something or trying to increase their personal power. Sensationalism and doom attracts more eyeballs than a more balanced approach. We should be skeptical of worst case scenario claims.

---

Malibu said:

---

A more nuanced take:
Burning fossil fuels at the scale we are doing so is releasing quantities of CO2 at the scale massively more than the Earth would naturally release on its own. CO2 is not the one magical molecule we can put in the atmosphere at whatever quantities we want with no second and third order consequences. Current average temperatures are being exceeded year over year for recorded history, and declaring the hypothesis that human caused CO2 additions in the atmosphere has something to do with that, as models and science predicted it would, shouldn't cause thoughtful people to erupt in a deep belly laughter for being absurd liberal propaganda.

Yes, someone selling a fatalistic picture of Florida being underwater in 10 years was selling something or trying to increase their personal power. Sensationalism and doom attracts more eyeballs than a more balanced approach. We should be skeptical of worst case scenario claims.

---

Malibu said:

---

bobbranco said:

---

Malibu said:

---

A more nuanced take:
Burning fossil fuels at the scale we are doing so is releasing quantities of CO2 at the scale massively more than the Earth would naturally release on its own. CO2 is not the one magical molecule we can put in the atmosphere at whatever quantities we want with no second and third order consequences. Current average temperatures are being exceeded year over year for recorded history, and declaring the hypothesis that human caused CO2 additions in the atmosphere has something to do with that, as models and science predicted it would, shouldn't cause thoughtful people to erupt in a deep belly laughter for being absurd liberal propaganda.

Yes, someone selling a fatalistic picture of Florida being underwater in 10 years was selling something or trying to increase their personal power. Sensationalism and doom attracts more eyeballs than a more balanced approach. We should be skeptical of worst case scenario claims.

---

The emboldened is based on falsified data.

---

I go outside and I've been on the planet awhile. It's hotter here than it was when I was a kid. Maybe I'm in on the conspiracy too.

---

mode67ag said:

---

Let's agree to plant more trees. They're pretty and they eat carbon.

Have a good day.

---

philiah06 said:

---

I am not sure this is right at all. I am pretty sure controlled environments that increase their CO2 concentration by 100 ppm don't show a 2C increase in temperature or anything close to that. The 100 ppm to 2C increase is entirely based on historical CO2 and temperature data and trying to tie causation/correlation together. There has been discussion that temperature change is a driver of CO2 change and not the other way around. If I am entirely wrong, fire away.

---

philiah06 said:

---

I am not sure this is right at all. I am pretty sure controlled environments that increase their CO2 concentration by 100 ppm don't show a 2C increase in temperature or anything close to that. The 100 ppm to 2C increase is entirely based on historical CO2 and temperature data and trying to tie causation/correlation together. There has been discussion that temperature change is a driver of CO2 change and not the other way around. If I am entirely wrong, fire away.

---