Yeah still going to trust the people with science degrees on this one over the Trump supporters, who seemingly just don't want liberals to be right about anything. Probably because they've been brainwashed into hating them by candidates, PACs and "news" organizations paid for by oil companies (and other companies that want low taxes/deregulation).
In any event, I see stats that global CO2 concentration has increased by 45% just since the industrial revolution, and we are on track to emit about 4 times as much over the next 100 years. Doesn't sound like nothing to me. Also, isn't like half of the CO2 we produce dissolved into the oceans, rather than in the atmosphere? This is demonstrably leading to the ice caps melting, and the ice caps moderate global temperatures. Also, since the oceans determine things like rain that would seem to be a more important focus. But I'm no scientist.
Rather that pull some vague quote from somewhere, put some numbers to it.
CO2 levels have increased from 280 to 412 ppm in the last 170 years, and are currently increasing at between 2 and 3 ppm per year.
This has been the rate of growth for the last 20 years.
When you say we are on track to emit 4 times as much in the next 100 years,
do you mean 4 times 132 ppm already emitted by 2121?
So 132 times 4 equals 528 ppm or 5.28 ppm per year, more than double recent emissions.
The real question is how sensitive is our climate to added CO2?
We have an energy problem, not a CO2 problem!
Our planet cannot support the current population without a usable way of carrying energy around.
Hydrocarbon fuels, have allowed the massive increase in agriculture, that feeds the billions alive today.
We must have a replacement that is equally as energy dense, to be sustainable, much less move forward.
Solving our energy problem, will solve any issues that may exist with CO2, as a side effect.
