They are simply acknowledging the fact that the rate at which carbon is being emitted into our ecosystem has to be checked in order to mitigate global warming and its dire consequences.
There is no science to back up this hypothesis.
Historical data and cycles suggests nothing of the sort.
(co2 has been much of much higher concentrations with more abundant life).
I think Co2 is also shown to be lagging indicator - correlated with solar activities
The more important question is:
Why do you choose to believe proven liars? (government institutions , and research funded by governments).
We know they lie...
Isn't that stupidity /naivety/gullibility ? ...To choose to believe those very institutions that choose to lie and deceive you, numerous times?
Let me guess. You do not believe in climate change as well right? I know this your view usually goes hand in hand with climate change denial, and perhaps flat earth too.
I have the right response to your comment but I will wait for the author to respond to you in detail. @ummar do tag me when you respond to him/her.
Climate change has been occurring for the last 4 billion years or so - I see no reason for it stop now.
Assumptive statements have no validity, display a very weak position , are dismissive and show lack of respect, go some way to indicate your cognitive ability, and - possibly - a very weak ego formation .
How old are you?
....Respond away as much as you like - but you'll need to 'up your game' if that last response is anything to go by.
Your response indicates a distinct lack of @proofofbrain
You're welcome.
Good that you admitted to the fact that climate change has been occurring for the last 4 billion years. As a scientist, it is not enough to just be contented with the status quo, especially when the end of it spells doom for the planet. Yes, it could have been occurring for a while, the current rate is the main bone of contention. We have far exceeded our carbon budget for this century and the implication is that we are depleting the planet at a much higher pace than naturally programmed.
I admit that my earlier comment might be a bit out of place, it is a kind of defense mechanism against several pseudoscientific ideologies that I have witnessed on this platform.
NB: You will have to be more subtle if you are so keen to know my age
Edit: I will take the subtle insult with a pinch of salt.
Interesting angle and even a more interesting exchange in the comment section. Before continuing, I need to be sure of certain things. Thus, please be honourable enough to answer these 2 questions as honest as possible:
I am not asking these questions in order to throw bants or be mischievous. I really want to be sure of your position before taking things further.
It's logical angle.
Admit? - it not a guilt or innocence thing.lol
CO2 is 0.04% of gas in the atmosphere.
Climate change is real, it's never stopped.
You questions are leading. Mine are logical.
Admit?
honorable?
Anything like?
You talk in a postmodernist, world salad , style.
I don't.
The percentage of CO2 might be minute compared to other gases but the amount of radiation it is capable of absorbing combined with the fact that this amount keeps increasing every day is what makes it a significant threat.
Yet it's lower in concentrations today than it has been since....whenever..(as the graph shows quite clearly).
Pesky facts not fitting establishment narratives can be a real downer sometimes.