Geeze, if that's what you're so bent out of shape about. Let me put it another way.
You mean by refuting me with fallacious claims. Yes, there is good reason to refute objectively incorrect sentiments. Again, resorting to peer pressure to coerce you beliefs, like a fucking god believer.
Say you want to save 10$. The goal isn't to save 10$, it's to save at least 10$, preferably more. In a similar way, since global warming is the problem, there is a goal to try and stop further warming. But since the warming is the problem, the goal behind that isn't just to slow it down, you'd want to reverse things back to the levels they were before they started to rise.
Stupid stupid example. Its nice that you'd like things to go back to normal levels, but that's not what you stated. You stated it was always the goal. Which is certainly was not.
I never implied that the UN or whatever had ever set a goal of reversing climate change.
No, you interjected when when we, me and another person, were discussing real events, including those set by the paris climate accord. You saw a buzzword and got triggered. End of story.
It really isn't, but you can pretend like it is if you like.
Support your fucking statements.
Funny that. You're agreeing with me about carbon sequestration effects.
Actually I would if you had made any relevant claims. In this context, carbon has been sequesterd for millions of years. Where do you think most of todays fossil fuels come from? Algae and peat bogs from the permian, mostly. CO2 level were much higher back then, btw, as was the global temperature. Infact, the planet was tropical from pole to pole, and we still haven't recovered from the biodiversity lost due to that extinction event. Our peak was over 252 million years ago. And we've been cooling since. Which, incidentally resulted in the recent ice ages. But you know all about that, don't you... /s
What does this even mean to you? What benefit does converting it into biomass do you think exists?
It means exactly what it says. Here's a source you still haven't addressed.
Do you expect to see more squirrels running around bulging out at the sides or something, you haven't done a very good job of explaining yourself.
Those are examples of biomass, yes.
You keep agreeing with me about most of what is said, even though you end up agreeing with me every other sentence about effects and causes
Cyclical logic. I answered your question, now your turn. What do you think you are arguing and how does it refute my claims? You haven't responded to any direct citicisms, and if you don't respond to this, I'm going to assume you can't.
I mean this is the thing, you don't give a shit about carbon being in the environment... But you agree that removing carbon from he environment would help to halt or reverse the effects.
Wrong again. This is what I keep saying
Its the rate of change that threatens us, not change itself.
You either agree that sequestration would be beneficial, or you don't.
I don't. I think it would benifit us now. But its not a universally good thing. Carbon has been sequestering. Naturally. Causing Ice Ages. You realize that climate change goes both ways, right? And happens on its own, right? In the long run more carbon is better for the Earth System. That's where all this carbon came from to begin with. but again. and here in caps and bolds so you see it.
#ITS THE RATE OF CHANGE THAT THREATENS US. NOT CHANGE ITSELF.
#ITS THE RATE OF CHANGE THAT THREATENS US. NOT CHANGE ITSELF.
#ITS THE RATE OF CHANGE THAT THREATENS US. NOT CHANGE ITSELF.
#ITS THE RATE OF CHANGE THAT THREATENS US. NOT CHANGE ITSELF.
#ITS THE RATE OF CHANGE THAT THREATENS US. NOT CHANGE ITSELF.