Trump Declares in EO that CO2 Is Not Pollution..

[txdot-guy]

Originally Posted by Schwarzer Ritter

Climate change, if you insist on using that word, is a myth. No, not climate change which is changing constantly, but the impact human activity on the climate is exaggerated. Explain the periods of excessive warmth or cooling in planetary history when humanity was much less.

Don't look under your bed, you might imagine you see a boogeyman.

And for the mentally challenged, I wrote about this when Trump was still a democrat.

Incorrect. Changes in the climate in the distant past doesn’t invalidate the effect that excess carbon dioxide emissions has now.

The fact is that our climate is changing and getting hotter sooner and for longer periods of time than expected. Human activity and the fact that carbon dioxide traps heat is the most likely cause of climate change.

[rooster]

[Schwarzer Ritter]

Originally Posted by txdot-guy

Incorrect. Changes in the climate in the distant past doesn’t invalidate the effect that excess carbon dioxide emissions has now.

The fact is that our climate is changing and getting hotter sooner and for longer periods of time than expected. Human activity and the fact that carbon dioxide traps heat is the most likely cause of climate change.

And what is "excess". There were higher levels of CO2 in the past.

[Schwarzer Ritter]

Originally Posted by rooster

Ahhhhh, I remember when it was a coming Ice Age.

[rooster]

Originally Posted by Schwarzer Ritter

Ahhhhh, I remember when it was a coming Ice Age.

Sea ice! Don't forget the sea ice! There's more of it than ever. EVER!!

(it ain't actually true...but I know that don't matter to ya...I'm just tryin ta help ya get ta the bottom of that seemingly bottomless list of tired ol' tropes that you keep draggin out here...you're welcome!)

.

[fd-guy]

Originally Posted by Schwarzer Ritter

Climate change, if you insist on using that word, is a myth. No, not climate change which is changing constantly, but the impact human activity on the climate is exaggerated. Explain the periods of excessive warmth or cooling in planetary history when humanity was much less.

Don't look under your bed, you might imagine you see a boogeyman.

And for the mentally challenged, I wrote about this when Trump was still a democrat.

The scientific consensus on human-driven climate change is well established. If you have peer-reviewed evidence to the contrary, share it.

[ICU 812]

From my college days, I have vague memories of a class on metabolism and respiration.

My recollection is that Carbon Monoxide (CO us a metabolic poison and will kill you, but that Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is a necessary by product of the Crebs Cycle and is necessary for plant life to live.

[fd-guy]

Originally Posted by ICU 812

From my college days, I have vague memories of a class on metabolism and respiration.

My recollection is that Carbon Monoxide (CO us a metabolic poison and will kill you, but that Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is a necessary by product of the Crebs Cycle and is necessary for plant life to live.

Perhaps we can all agree that an introductory biology concept isn’t the same as evidence addressing modern climate modeling and atmospheric physics.

Basic biochemistry about CO₂ being part of respiration isn’t really in dispute. The climate question isn’t whether CO₂ exists or has biological functions — it’s whether increasing atmospheric concentrations affect temperature and climate systems.

And there’s a difference between recalling a college metabolism class and citing peer-reviewed climate research. They’re not the same thing. I was asking for the latter.

[Turner2099]

Originally Posted by ICU 812

From my college days, I have vague memories of a class on metabolism and respiration.

My recollection is that Carbon Monoxide (CO us a metabolic poison and will kill you, but that Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is a necessary by product of the Crebs Cycle and is necessary for plant life to live.

Water is also necessary to live, but you can still drown in it.

[pxmcc]

now we find out climate change/global warming is accelerating.
yikes..

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-026-00745-z

no surprise tho with multiple positive feedback loops..

[Tiny]

Originally Posted by pxmcc

now we find out climate change/global warming is accelerating.
yikes..

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-026-00745-z

no surprise tho with multiple positive feedback loops..

This may not be significant. In 2020, the global sulfur cap for marine fuel dropped from 3.5% to 0.5%. As noted in the Nature article, this contributed to an acceleration in global warming. The sulfur dioxide (SO2) from combustion of the fuel forms tiny particles, which reflect sunlight and brighten clouds. Take away the SO2 and all else being equal, temperature increases.

The effect occurs with a lag, affecting temperature during following years. But it doesn't go on forever. It's more like a step change, with a ramp up to the next level over several years according to ChatGPT. In other words, while there has been an acceleration in warming since 2020 because of the change in fuel requirements, this shouldn't carry forward into the 2030's.

Here's a link to the paper cited in the Nature article,

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley....9/2025GL118804

I've only scanned it, but don't believe it addresses the marine fuel issue.

And here's a link to a 2025 paper, in the same journal, that comes to a very different conclusion: "there's insufficient evidence of an abrupt increase in forced warming rate in recent years."

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley....9/2025GL115270

Btw, in a pinch, spraying sulfur dioxide in the stratosphere (higher in the atmosphere than where the SO2 from fuels ends up) could be a cheap, effective way of reducing global temperatures. It has a couple of drawbacks, but would probably work.

[lustylad]

It's amazing to me how few greenies understand where most of the CO2 emissions are coming from.

If you tell them China is spewing out nearly 3 TIMES as much CO2 as the US, do they believe you? Does it register with them? Does it affect their priorities in any way, shape or form?

The US has actually reduced emissions by 20% since 2005. Meanwhile, China has more than tripled emissions since 2000. Why should we knock ourselves out trying to reduce our "carbon footprint" if the 800-pound gorilla (or panda) in the room won't stop exploding his own footprint by a huge multiple of whatever volume we manage to cut?

(Are you listening, AOC? Are you listening, Greta?)

I guess it's easier to pretend that shutting down the Keystone XL pipeline will make a difference than it is to face up to the reality that the Chinese keep adding another new coal-fired power plant to their electric grid every fucking week!

[Jacuzzme]

The same alarmists said we’d all be dead by now.
Credibility = 0

Steaming pile of horseshit, unworthy of keystrokes and certainly unworthy of taxpayer dollars. Money would be better spent opening learing centers on every block or, god forbid, letting the people who earned it decide.

[pxmcc]

this..

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...climate-crisis

it's here and staying here. it's either going to be bad or worse. those are the realistic options.

per capita, the good ol USA is #1 in emissions and #2 overall. what we do matters.

China is beating us in renewables. it's not even close. i'll post some stats when i get a second.

China is #1 in emissions b/c they are the center of the world in industrial production/manufacturing. we ceded that status long ago. even so, per capita, their CO2 and CH4 emissions are lower than ours.

Originally Posted by lustylad

It's amazing to me how few greenies understand where most of the CO2 emissions are coming from.

If you tell them China is spewing out nearly 3 TIMES as much CO2 as the US, do they believe you? Does it register with them? Does it affect their priorities in any way, shape or form?

The US has actually reduced emissions by 20% since 2005. Meanwhile, China has more than tripled emissions since 2000. Why should we knock ourselves out trying to reduce our "carbon footprint" if the 800-pound gorilla (or panda) in the room won't stop exploding his own footprint by a huge multiple of whatever volume we manage to cut?

(Are you listening, AOC? Are you listening, Greta?)

I guess it's easier to pretend that shutting down the Keystone XL pipeline will make a difference than it is to face up to the reality that the Chinese keep adding another new coal-fired power plant to their electric grid every fucking week!

Originally Posted by Jacuzzme

The same alarmists said we’d all be dead by now.
Credibility = 0

Steaming pile of horseshit, unworthy of keystrokes and certainly unworthy of taxpayer dollars. Money would be better spent opening learing centers on every block or, god forbid, letting the people who earned it decide.

[Jacuzzme]

You trust too many people with a financial stake in alarmism.