>>11993597>>11994279>>11994305>>11993852If CO2 were the big problem it's portrayed to be, the governments would be pushing CO2 scrubbing rather than shutting down industries. There were no issues with getting rid of CFCs when science showed facts, so why is CO2 special?
Why are governments not banning people from shitting in drinking water? Water treatment plants are expensive, and shitting in the fields is what humans had done for a long time, so why not push for that?
Problem with CO2 is the same. Surely a few scrubbers and catalysts, with some forest planting would fix any possible shit humans have done, no? It could also mitigate any garbage rest of the world does, if a single power like US chose to invest modestly in CO2 scrubbing. So, again, why is CO2 different?
I could talk about how it's not CO2, as greenhouse effect is 95+% due to water molecules, how it's not supposed to be humans either, as 75-90% of CO2 is from vulcanic emissions or how historic correlation has always shown temperature leading the way, with CO2 always only following the trend, but that won't change your opinion. And as it turns out, the facts don't actually matter, they never have.
The approach to CO2 is very dogmatic, and any opposition is being religiously persecuted. I think the reason is probably related to people who've taken this "movement" on to further their political goals. Same as 2016 & 2020 BLM movement getting hijacked by people with dark triad personalities pushing it towards their own political goals, so has environmental science seen it's share of "prophets", preaching "facts" that science does not support, using tricks like appealing to people's emotions to push their own agenda. Think Al Gore, the inventor of internet, who made an oscar-winning film where he talks about how his sister got cancer for not wearing a seatbelt, or something like that.
The CO2 movement is old, and has been quite heavily infiltrated by the dark triad mentality, unfortunately
(1/2)
