I'd have to dig up all the sources again, but it's fairly well researched at this point. Historical trends show the increases in CO2 are a result of temperatures rising, not what causes temperatures to rise. That's why the propaganda always says "during periods of high CO2, temperatures were higher" because that focuses on after they've both risen while ignoring that temperatures rise and then CO2 rises.
In fact, high enough CO2 is what triggers the planet to go from heating to cooling. How could it also be what causes heating?
Historical trends show the increases in CO2 are a result of temperatures rising, not what causes temperatures to rise.
Right but how do the trends show that? Do temperatures increase first, then CO2? What's the methodology?
In fact, high enough CO2 is what triggers the planet to go from heating to cooling. How could it also be what causes heating?
AFAIK CO2 and other greenhouse gasses increase temperatures to the point water vapor (which is overall the biggest contributor to the greenhouse effect) leaves the atmosphere through hydrodynamic escape, which then results in cooling at the cost of less water on the planet. Of course we have plenty of water, but the problem is this not only takes a long time to happen but the effects on the earth's biomes in the meantime are severe. Deserts expand, habitats are lost, extinctions happen, the ice caps melt which alone causes tons of problems.
We'd be better off transitioning to nuclear power and slowly - not in 5 years or whatever Biden says, but over decades - phase out fossil fuels and incentivize environmentalism in various industries through tax credits. Environmentalism isn't a cultural marxist thing or whatever but so long as the right does nothing about it the left can weaponize it and turn it into a marxist thing. If we become more eco-friendly it'd be a huge blow to the Dems.
Higher CO2 is a byproduct of increased temperatures, not a cause. That's the part they won't tell you.
How did you come to that conclusion, pede?
I'd have to dig up all the sources again, but it's fairly well researched at this point. Historical trends show the increases in CO2 are a result of temperatures rising, not what causes temperatures to rise. That's why the propaganda always says "during periods of high CO2, temperatures were higher" because that focuses on after they've both risen while ignoring that temperatures rise and then CO2 rises.
In fact, high enough CO2 is what triggers the planet to go from heating to cooling. How could it also be what causes heating?
Right but how do the trends show that? Do temperatures increase first, then CO2? What's the methodology?
AFAIK CO2 and other greenhouse gasses increase temperatures to the point water vapor (which is overall the biggest contributor to the greenhouse effect) leaves the atmosphere through hydrodynamic escape, which then results in cooling at the cost of less water on the planet. Of course we have plenty of water, but the problem is this not only takes a long time to happen but the effects on the earth's biomes in the meantime are severe. Deserts expand, habitats are lost, extinctions happen, the ice caps melt which alone causes tons of problems.
We'd be better off transitioning to nuclear power and slowly - not in 5 years or whatever Biden says, but over decades - phase out fossil fuels and incentivize environmentalism in various industries through tax credits. Environmentalism isn't a cultural marxist thing or whatever but so long as the right does nothing about it the left can weaponize it and turn it into a marxist thing. If we become more eco-friendly it'd be a huge blow to the Dems.