> You're using facts about the magnitude of the problem to justify inaction towards solving it. That just doesn't make any sense.
No. I am telling you that there is no way we can solve it. Doing so requires violating the laws of physics and science in general. That's what does not make sense.
What is clearer proof of the fallacy than knowing precisely how our planet behaves without humanity on it?
We know this. Accurately.
It takes 50K to 100K years for a 100 ppm change in atmospheric CO2.
Nothing. Absolutely nothing we do can improve on this rate of change. I've seen politicians claim we can fix it in 20 to 50 years. Does anyone challenge this nonsense when uttered? No, of course not.
They are claiming we can accelerate a planetary scale problem by a factor of ONE THOUSAND or more and nobody bothers to ask "How?" or "Where is the energy going to come from?" or "How much additional pollution and damage will the proposed process generate?" or "Are you insane?".
We desperately need to start talking about reality and leave these fantasies behind.
> Trivially false—humanity has already changed the CO2 ppm by larger, in a shorter span of time. For the most part without even noticing.
You are trivially confused: The time, energy and resources required to emit these gasses is insignificant when compared to what it will take to capture them back.
That's the problem, and that's what most casual observers refuse to think through and understand.
Go buy a 10 kg bag of fine flour. Walk around your home or office spreading the stuff everywhere.
Now clean up every single particle.
Easy to make a mess. Not so easy in time, energy and resources to clean it up. That's the problem.
