Not all scientists think human-generated CO2 is a problem. The science of climatology has become utterly fouled by politics, self-interest, willful blindness, and group-think. Democrats outside of fossil fuel states don't dare openly question the "inconvenient truth" that human-caused CO2 is damaging the planet. Most Republicans have moved to an opposite, climate-skeptical position. For Republican officeholders, either CO2 is not an imminent problem, or at least there is nothing Americans could do that would change anything. So don't bother.
I don't ascribe intention to the planet, but I do think that humans are likely doing what can happen: a species' success destroys its habitat. I had thought it more likely that nuclear war would do it, and it still might. We are social enough to cooperate for war and economic behavior, but not social enough to put a brake on it. Yes, I think you describe the situation, Anna. I think we can row against the current and maybe it will work out, but I am attempting to describe the current.
Oh dear, Peter. So much to respond to. I'm drafting a rebuttal based on my work in climate change education leadership that I hope you'll consider. Meanwhile, here's a quick route to scientific responses to the climate-skeptical tropes you shared: https://skepticalscience.com.
The upper-left hand corner addresses them all (well, the China issue is troubling, but not worth giving up about). Onward.
So mass extinctions, fire devouring the west, rising warming oceans that will cover complete islands and wreak havoc along coastlines--all part of the plan. The planet apparently counted on a species digging down into its crust to bring up the elements that will put it back in balance and then it can do away with most carbon units and start over.
I don't ascribe intention to the planet, but I do think that humans are likely doing what can happen: a species' success destroys its habitat. I had thought it more likely that nuclear war would do it, and it still might. We are social enough to cooperate for war and economic behavior, but not social enough to put a brake on it. Yes, I think you describe the situation, Anna. I think we can row against the current and maybe it will work out, but I am attempting to describe the current.
So we beat on.
Oh dear, Peter. So much to respond to. I'm drafting a rebuttal based on my work in climate change education leadership that I hope you'll consider. Meanwhile, here's a quick route to scientific responses to the climate-skeptical tropes you shared: https://skepticalscience.com.
The upper-left hand corner addresses them all (well, the China issue is troubling, but not worth giving up about). Onward.
So mass extinctions, fire devouring the west, rising warming oceans that will cover complete islands and wreak havoc along coastlines--all part of the plan. The planet apparently counted on a species digging down into its crust to bring up the elements that will put it back in balance and then it can do away with most carbon units and start over.
Well, at least Peter, we have made it past calling it climate warming to calling it climate change :-)