We've all heard the loud talking from the chicken littles who blame humans as the cause for all the so-called CO2 rise thats in the atmosphere, but very little admittance from the doomsayers as to what should be done about it.
:roll:
No, dude. Just no.
Climate scientists started recommending action decades ago, including but not limited to:
• Direct regulation of GHG emissions
• Carbon taxes and/or trading schemes
• R&D and subsidizing sustainable energy generation
• R&D and subsidizing carbon capture
• Increasing public transportation
• Reducing reliance on fossil fuels
Their concerns are why CFCs are so heavily regulated, why the ozone hole is just starting to close, why China and India have set aggressive GHG reduction targets, why we had the Kyoto Protocols, why we had the Paris Agreement, why numerous European nations are developing sustainable energy generation....
Yup, the IPCC is obsessed with maintaining a 1.5C rise at the maximum, and squarely puts the blame on humanity (even though there is no definite proof that we are causing a slight rise in temp, nor is there proof that more severe weather or mass extinction will happen).
:roll:
No, dude. Just no.
There is no question that humanity is to blame for the vast majority of global warming. You are in "cigarettes don't cause cancer" territory. Seriously.
Second, the IPCC is hoping to keep it to 1.5C because of the severity of the impacts of warming above those levels. They even wrote a whole report on it. Yes, that includes more extreme weather. It does not include "mass extinction," though it does mean lots of deaths and lots of people needing to move, many of whom are in extreme poverty.
By the way, climate scientists are not responsible for your inaccurate hyperbolic claims.
- Every available space has to be allocated for wind farms (how this can be reconciled with reforestation is not explained)... etc
:roll:
No, dude. Just no.
"Extinction Rebellion" is an activist organization that started in 2018, not a collection of climate scientists.
Why are its demands so extreme? In part because they're trying to make a point -- activists, after all, are not usually known for subtlety. Another critical reason, though, is because
people like you keep denying the science. We've squandered decades of time when we could have taken more action earlier, and avoided some of the worst consequences with less impact on individuals.
The situation we're in is the equivalent of your doctor saying "if you keep smoking cigarettes, you're going to get lung cancer." Instead of stopping, you keep lighting up, and you are then shocked -- shocked! -- that you develop lung cancer, and need to take extreme steps (like chemo and surgery), and that you will never get back to normal. Instead of stopping the harmful habit, you want to keep puffing. Not a good plan.
