...And humans contribute only 4% of the total CO2 in nature ?
Sorry to be repetitive, but you only throw out your opinion, and never respond to these facts....
Missed that one, but your other "facts" were shown to be incorrect in
#150 if you'd like to discuss.
Your source on the "humans contribute only 4%" is way off ... from NASA the human contributed CO
2 concentration in 2019 was 47%:
...This represents a 47 percent increase since the beginning of the Industrial Age, when the concentration was near 280 ppm, and an 11 percent increase since 2000, when it was near 370 ppm. Crisp points out that scientists know the increases in carbon dioxide are caused primarily by human activities because carbon produced by burning fossil fuels has a different ratio of heavy-to-light carbon atoms, so it leaves a distinct “fingerprint” (
ref)..
Considering the half-life it's undoubtedly up more by now. The current count is 409 ppm which would be a 68.4% increase, but unlike NASA's numbers, I didn't pull out CO2 from natural events (e.g., volcanic eruption), so it would be somewhat more than 47% and a lot less than 68% now.
...please show me how they measured the earth's temp in 1850 ...
I had the same questions at first, it's talked about in the thread with references if you're truly interested in the technical bits.
... a waste of time attempting to engage with such people....
Your time, you don't have to spend it engaging people if you don't want to. Keep in mind some attempts to get the truth out there can backfire and reinforce the other's belief:
The
backfire effect is a
cognitive bias that causes people who encounter evidence that challenges their beliefs to reject that evidence, and to strengthen their support of their original stance. Essentially, the backfire effect means that showing people evidence which proves that they are wrong
is often ineffective, and can actually
end up backfiring, by causing them to support their original stance
more strongly than they previously did. (
ref)
That's okay...I figure I get to believe what I want and they get to believe what they want. But I'm generally happy to discuss facts and point out things wrong in any argument... and hope others will do the same for me. Of course, not addressing
fake facts tends to make them feel like they're right, e.g., my error in not addressing 100% of the issue that led to #161.
Veratasium's P-Hacks are still out there too, so for me it's good to hear alternate theories and ideas.
... it seems to me that anyone else who has [studied climate change] - and is not an interested party - has come to the same conclusion. The "science" is a fraud.
I'd have to disagree. I am fairly disinterested (old and won't live long enough to see the effects) and don't stand to make any money or fame by it. I also just looked into the science (what this thread ended up being about) and came to the
opposite conclusion. I did review your post, it was interesting to see we started at a similar place. I invite you to review the thread and engage in discussion on it (but start at the beginning, the last 5 pages are more "opinions" than "science".
I thought your (our) best argument was #2, but (it's in the thread in detail so won't repeat much here) ran into some issues: the rate of change is far above normal from the past, climate change or not it makes sense to start to move to solar & wind with ESS because it will be cheaper to do so, and finally that slowing/halting the warming will reduce societal infrastructure costs by 1000:1 (not to mention those peaks on your graph correspond to mass extinction events). People get hung up on the man-made or not, but ultimately to me that's not what's important, it's the temperature rise and what it means in terms of costs.
I'm just surprised to find this thread on a forum full of off-gridders! Maybe solar increases one's respect for the sun's role in all this? lol
I only installed solar and bought an EV to save
money. My change from being a climate skeptic/denier is very recent. I'd even go so far as to say I might be wrong, but so far the evidence seems to point the other way when you really dig in.
It takes at least 10 times the time and effort to refute a statement of disinformation / misinformation as it does to come up with the nonsense in the first place.
True enough. Doing real research (especially on this topic) rather than stating opinions is difficult.
The real question to me is are how open-minded are they? I've no issue with people stating their views/beliefs, power to them! They're entitled and I'm not going to argue with what they believe.
But, in regards to "facts" I hope folks are interested in honest dialog, things change and opinions should too. But if after debunking their "facts" they still argue without references or turn it into a character debate I tend to ignore them as trolls.