Replying to Avatar Guy Swann

Agreed. But I do feel obligated to caveat because its not that the word is "triggering," but merely that it is deeply false based on what the establishment attaches to the idea.

It's just that the dominant parts of that narrative they spin are total lies:

• It causes more and terrible storms (no it doesn't)

• It causes more droughts and forest fires (no it doesn't)

• CO2 is a pollutant (no it isn't)

• That it is bad for plant & animal life to have more CO2 or for the planet to get warmer (no it isn't)

• That its bad for human life for the planet to get warmer (no it isn't)

• That the planet wouldn't be getting warmer if we weren't driving around in cars (not remotely true)

• That it will keep getting hotter forever until everything bursts into flames (not only not true based on it's more base premises, but CO2 as a greenhouse gas has a diminishing effect, basically a "bitcoin halving" like warming effect where no matter how much more we add it will simply stop contributing to the GHE at a certain point - even if it is the most important factor for a warming planet, which is not at all proven or even very sensible)

If you take all these simple facts out of the foundation of the narrative, there just isn't that much left. And it distracts from the REAL problems we have in energy & establishes a framing that will make these problems worse, instead of better.

I ramble here only to make a point. That mindset is absolutely critical, and we have to stop submitting to a frame that is clearly wrong & forces us into a model of thinking that will do more damage than good. But generally I actually agree with your note 😆
Avatar
Bitcoiners for Future 2y ago

Sorry Guy, but I disagree. CO2 is the biggest driver of current climate change, with a large human contribution. CO2 seals the earth's atmosphere (heat is trapped); as a result, the planet heats up more due to the incoming rays of the sun (greenhouse effect).

Is climate change caused by humans?

Hundreds of research institutions worldwide agree that the current rapid rate of climate change is caused by human activity. A US study ( https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ac2966/pdf )

analyzed 88,125 climate studies and concluded that 99% of the studies agree that humans play an overwhelming role in climate change. With the help of models, it is possible to simulate how the climate would have developed without anthropogenic influences and how it finally developed with those influences.

Here is a summary of many studies including evidence that there is a man-made part to climate change:

https://www.dw.com/en/fact-check-why-climate-change-is-real/a-62482188

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

Avatar
Guy Swann 2y ago

re-read what I said:

I never said CO2 isn't a greenhouse gas or doesn't contribute to warming.

I never said that humans aren't having any effect on the climate.

I said CO2 is not a *pollutant*

I said there are tons of holes in the idea that it's the *dominant* force

and I said that there isn't a *crisis.*

None of what you said (regardless of its degree of exaggeration by an apparatus of politically driven and funded science) follows that the world is about to end or that this is a horrific development for the planet or for humanity. Politics has attached this insane leap of logic *without* any evidence supported almost entirely by the belief that humans are an evil force that should never have any effect on the world and if one does arise at all, its a horrible thing that must be stopped.

I'm arguing against an anti-human ideology that turns simple observations into political catastrophes in an effort to get power.

Avatar
Bitcoiners for Future 2y ago

I agree with you, CO2 is not a pollutant per se, but a valuable part of the earth's ecosystem. However - as Paracelsus said - the quantity makes the poison.

CO2 "seals" the atmosphere, causing the heat from the incoming rays of the sun to accumulate (greenhouse effect).

A reduction of CO2 therefore makes sense and - as you rightly say - without panic, but with consistency.

We see Bitcoin as a wonderful opportunity for economic disinflation and as a promoter of renewable energy expansion. We are skeptical about purely centralized solutions - for the following reasons: dysfunctionality, false economic incentives (expansion of the money supply), possible surveillance.

Avatar
G 2y ago

In your estimation, how much CO2 do humans contribute compared to total CO2 emitted?