Thinking that humans activities has zero impact on Earth en…

Of course we are in a crisis of species going extinct due to us expanding and polluting. But concentrating on CO2 emissions and introducing new taxes is going to lead us to an even deeper catastrophe. Let's start by eliminating plastic packaging or smthn.

Thats a fair point. You think the solution (tax) needs to be better to deal with the problem (polluted environment).

Not everyone is on your page though. Some even think it’s a non issue.

And focusing on CO2*

We are wasting resources fighting CO2 as naturally generated amount by the environment itself is 100x more. Other emissions should be addressed perhaps, but CO2 stuff is clearly a lie? Using non recyclable material for packaging should be banned.

Majority of scientific community have already move past the phase of “CO2 has no effect on Earths climate” to “CO2 clearly plays a significant role in impacting Earths environment”.

It is not clearly a lie, quite the contrary.

Planet Earth's flora and fauna contribute 99% of CO2. Humans 1%. You are saying that we should reduce 1% to 0.9% to save the planet? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7hkOPkmzm2w

Oh, the “Natural Emissions dwarf human emissions” claim.

Rebuttal:

For approximately the last 10,000 years, until the industrial revolution, "every gigatonne of carbon going into the atmosphere was balanced by one coming out.

What humans have done is alter one side of this cycle. We put approximately 6 gigatonnes of carbon into the air, but unlike nature, we are not taking any out…

Since we began burning fossil fuels in earnest over 150 years ago, the atmospheric concentration that was relatively stable for the previous several thousand years has now risen by over 35%.”

I don’t get your plastic pollution point.

How can Earth balance against solar cycles, which cause volcanos to erupt, changing the climate? How humans come into play with these universal forces? It's arrogant to think that we do while we can't even keep our environment tidy from plastic pollution.

Why not? Humans activities have already emitted more CO2 than volcanos by a factor of 2.

By a factor of 2 in what time frame? Are you aware of how most recent grand solar minimum cycles (Dalton and Maunder minimum) have affected the Earth in recent centuries? Point is microplastics are killing environment now, but you keep aiming for the skies

To further prove that, scientist have incorporated these cycles into their climate models calculated using Super computers, all of which showed that global warming due to human CO2 far outweighs that of solar cycles.

Good that you bring up the split cycles. These solar cycles are well known phenomena in the scientific community.

In fact, simple back of the envelope calculations have suggested the impact to be negligible compared to warming potential of CO2.

And this billion tons of emission is still growing at an accelerating pace.

Year on year, humans activities produce 100x (by conservative estimates) more CO2 than volcanoes.

To be more accurate, earths volcanoes produce in the range of million tons per year, while humans produce in the range of billion tons annually.

Micro plastics are indeed a major threat to the environment, but a relatively new problem compared to impact of CO2.

Trust me, scientist are studying that and are beginning to scratch it’s surface. Both issues are top priorities IMO.

Also wonder if that's how people argued back in the day that "experts say bad guy has WMDs, we must take action now". World has been sold and global economy is indebted for generations, naively believe that suddenly good guys turn up not looking for profit

I have no idea why your conclusion is that I like to trust experts?

Do you think I don’t do research?

It’s because your “research” have been debunked a decade ago. People have since then moved on from those pseudo science.

Twenty years ago it was Ozone layer, ten ago Global Warming, today Global Climate Change, tomorrow it's going to be Global Cooling, then whos right? Glad you don't "research" Bitcoin the same way you do climate.

Wait let’s not jump to conclusions. Let’s do it one by one.

Since you mentioned Ozone Layer, what’s wrong or not correct about it?

You don't remember/never heard of "the hole in the ozone" emergency?

yes i did，but my version of history seems to be different from yours. So I would like to hear your version since you brought it up.

Was it wrong or a scam?

Doesn't it seem strange how with developing nations ever increasing emissions around the world, "Ozone problem" is completely gone from the news stream? https://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/12/05/the-ozone-scare-was-a-dry-run-for-the-global-warming-scare/

It’s strange how you keep quoting dubious sources and Tim Ball. Any peer reviewed or official sources?

Or have you studied or learnt the science behind it yourself instead of quoting conspiracies?

In last bunch of msgs you provide no info but accuse my srces as “dubious” “conspiracies”. What is incorrect in the video or texts I linked to? Still no idea why I think you trust "experts"? Pls some (counter)facts with sources if you’d like to continue.

Who is the one trusting the experts? You quote Tim Ball, someone who believe in creationism and thinks evolution is false. He has zero credibility in science.

You mentioned no media is talking about ozone. Have you looked outside of your country?

In fact, scientist (from all over the world who ratified the Montreal protocol ) review the state of the ozone every four years. Recent discovery was that HFCs which are used to replaced the banned CFCs might not be ideal.

http://conf.montreal-protocol.org/meeting/mop/mop30/presession/Background-Documents/SAP-2018-Assessment-ES-October2018.pdf

Here’s the latest review.

Tim Ball has his face attached to what he is saying. Your 1000 faceless experts are worth less than that. When facts and sources?

https://twetch.app/t/5f9d4627680f65d44dab573d1a6780a1e6c9d4604781a0e927cd50829dd32d12

1987 Montreal Protocol messed up significantly by introducing HFCs due to “Ozone hole emergency”. The 2019 Kigali Amendment to Montreal Protocol bans HFCs because global warming. ftp://ftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/hats/papers/montzka/2012_pubs/Montzka_ASHRAE_2012.pdf

yes, exactly, As I mentioned a few posts up, the case is not closed. It has always been an issue of pros and cons. New research have suggested other HFCs, but that is debatable as well.

In fact, the hole has been at its smallest according to the report in 2018, hence not as critical as it used to be.

It is one of the greatest achievements of climate science, where we see an almost global wide ban of CFCs.

I have no idea why or how to come to your conclusion that this is a conspiracy/scam.

Or did I misunderstood you?

https://www.forbes.com/sites/patrickgleason/2019/07/18/nations-first-carbon-tax-could-be-enacted-this-summer-in-massachusetts-new-report-finds-that-would-be-bad-news-for-the-bay-state-economy

Wait let’s not move to Carbon Tax. We are on Ozone Layer and HFCs and not done yet.

Let’s see the logic:
1) we used CFCs
2) science shows CFCs deplete ozone layer.
3) Countries ban CFCs, replaces with HFCs.

As I mentioned, please only credible sources which are peered reviewed, and stop bringing in politics. I’m not from America, and like most scientist, we don’t care about democrats or republicans.

We are talking science aren’t we?

4) science shows HFCs solved the Ozone hole problem, but new problems arise in other areas in recent reviews.

5) Quest to find better replacements.

Please enlighten which is the scam?

There was never an Ozone hole unless you can provide sources for it. Politics is entangled, understand if you want to figure it out, you just said yourself “countries ban”. How? Global politics was part of it. I'm from EU btw.

Hi there, I’m from SE Asia. Thanks for the follow :)

Also this.

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2018/nasa-study-first-direct-proof-of-ozone-hole-recovery-due-to-chemicals-ban

1) Problem
2) Reaction
3) Solution

Have you not learnt from CSW episode that leaked emails from secondary sources are not good sources? Why not apply the similar level of scrutiny as what you did with the smearing of CSW (leaked/doctored emails) to the Ozone issue?

I gave you sources from credited sources which scientists from reputable universities all over the world worked on, you claim it is not a good source. Then produce a leaked email from The Guardian? The Guardian? Seriously?

Next, you mentioned this could be natural fluctuations. Well, there’s no need to guess. Not only NASA, Japan teams have also been independently tracking O3 and reproduce the same result.

http://www.env.go.jp/earth/report/ozone_annual_H30_0-1_cover-1.PDF

The Ozone issue is very well an active issue in the scientific community. It did not disappear like you said.

https://twetch.app/t/799bad37eca6a5694c4404dff7d237464d2a3f12b5ccffa7fbb5e86e71bb8c29

We only have measurements going back to 1979. With so little data fluctuations may surely be caused by natural phenomenon.

https://twetch.app/t/396061a0152cf195026a7baf9e0760df59cc4e37abf2a4dc81f2b2ac3d6d83bc