I do accept it. CO2 is 0.042% of our atmosphere. It has not been shown that CO2 is primarily or even significantly contributory to the greenhouse effect, however.

Even if it would, an increase of 500ppm (which would make the atmosphere itself terminally toxic to most mammal life) would only increase the global temperature 0.18C (according to original calculations I had chatgpt just do), which is hardly consequential in and of itself. And CO2 isn't going to increase that much from human action alone.

Nothingburger.

Almost all of them are deceit through omission, deception, or outright fabrication. So much of their data is falsifiable, particularly when it gets to the media as some sensational datapoint - like "The Gulf of Mexico is 110F! Climate change disaster!" or some such nonsense - when they're getting the data from the reading from one buoy inside a single marina. Happens all the time.

The thing is, there hasn't actually been an increase in extreme climate events. There's actually been a decrease.

Our infrastructure has simply become more intolerant of them, because we haven't been maintaining it or building it towards the possibility of exceptional weather. The result is more damage and more death, but it isn't caused by an increase in either the frequency or the severity.

You can quite quickly see there's a strong correlation between solar activity and the status of our severe weather events, too - it's well known and established fact - so I'm unclear how this in any way relates to (human-caused) climate change. Someone explain this to me?

It's relying on LLMs being able to search the internet for things. It goes somethign like this:

LLM searches for something, ends up on a site.
Site has multiple links embedded in it with said DNS payloads.
DNS lookup occurs.
LLM 'reads' said payload.

It actually is that hard, sometimes.

Often, jobs have a culture which have become structured so that you must be responsive, if not 24/7, then at the least during your work hours, to IMs. Step away from your desk for 30m to eat lunch or whatever? People are going to start calling you in many of these (IMO toxic) environments.

And frankly, it's required for some jobs (like in support roles). You've got to be available and IM is used for coordinating on the ground.

I've told people I am simply not available on IM platforms on my phone, I won't even install them if I can avoid it. This has caused some backlash, admittedly, but it's sanity worth preserving. If it's important, think it out a bit more and send me an email.

There's no good solution for this, unfortunately, particularly when everyone's set on using Slack for everything.

The only rational extension of this, then, is to get into that business.

Get experience welding/fabricating/cement work/construction, and figure out where that tech is going. Build a small nestegg as you rent and be intentionally poor.

Start a business doing what you now know, but automated - and ask your parents to help with collateral. Get investments and funding. Buy into a franchise making future-looking technology that can do the trade you now know.

The 3d printed structure equipment is one such vertical I can think of. Being able to run cable in those structures? You're going to need to learn how to do that, or hire someone to do it, because that's sometime off from being automated. There are still human elements which will remain such for the foreseeable future.

This will, unfortunately, undercut most people who do not have a combination of an IQ over 110-120, drive, and grit - which includes most of the people who are currently "programmers", unfortunately.

Because photosynthesis produces oxygen, and increased CO2 would lead to a higher oxygen production rate. It's pretty basic science that one learns in middle school.

I picked 25% arbitrarily, it could be higher or only marginally lower, and presumably it'd take a great deal of time for the entire planet's oxygen levels to stabilize to newer CO2 levels.

In a word: yes. (And no, I don't understand the mechanism here.)

The studies on both have been pretty conclusive. Masks have had zero measurable impact over baseline on viral infection rates in anecdotal studies, have been shown to significantly increase bacterial infections in the wearer, and they contribute to increased blood CO2 levels for the wearer. Rhetoric - yours or mine - aren't really factors here, it's merely what we've been able to prove scientifically.

"What makes you think there will be increased plant growth?"

Because it's literally what's happening throughout the world as we speak. Higher CO2 is leading to a regrowth of greenery, making deserts more habitable throughout North Africa.

That was literally the point I was making.

People breathe, and output CO2. There are more people in China, and thus, more CO2 production in aggregate (when you combine breathing + production).

What're you talking about?

I didn't get anything backwards, you misread and made an incorrect inference.

China has a lot more people. They also have a lower per-capita CO2 emittance but higher overall, because more people.

Because they have more people, they're also outputting (breathing out) more CO2. Thus how you get 4-5x total more. Because people breathe.

You also have to consider that the US has a long way to go before its even remotely competitive with China, if we're talking about total tons of CO2. They produce 2x what we do, and that's not including how much they breathe - which puts it more like 4-5x the total of what the US produces, for both India and China.

That's largely dependent on relative oxygen concentration in the air, which is the biggest reason indoor air quality is poor/low in oxygen - not CO2 directly. CO2 is the second order issue.

These are generally people with poor cardiovascular health in the first place.

With higher oxygen levels (as naturally happens with increased CO2) due to increased plant growth, people will/are able to withstand much more CO2 before its problematic.

Don't be silly. If you wore a mask during covid as all the doctors said you must to flatten the curve, you were breathing 2000-5000ppm CO2 all day long.

Meanwhile, that's about half of the low end of what plants prefer - 800-1200ppm.

Their alarmism about (the 180ppm) of the last Ice Age, meanwhile, was almost low enough to kill all plantlife on the planet (and with it, most animal species that depend on said plants). We were dangerously close to global annihilation.

For context, 1000ppm is going to be a stuffy office space, and 800ppm a well ventilated indoor space.

A well-fitted surgical mask like so many medical professionals insisted was necessary some short years ago? Those have been measured to result in a CO2 of 2,000-5,000 (with peaks up to 8,000ppm when its actually fit properly) for the air being inhaled. (But don't worry, that's still under the 8,000ppm 8-hour OSHA maximum.)

If plants like CO2, they're going to grow more rapidly and prolifically. That means, in turn, they'll be producing a lot more oxygen. Let's assume a moderate increase in O2 to 25% ambient... which is more than safe, and even preferable. The result would be that humans could withstand significantly higher CO2 ppm.

I'm not sure why we've ever started talking about CO2 as a "greenhouse gas" when it's 0.0425% of our atmosphere, and the facts above (about it causing significant greening of the planet). That much is well established, and it's well accepted that greening an area will decrease, not increase, the temperature of the area. We've seen this play out significantly in the last decade or so in eg. North Africa. This more than offsets the "global warming".

More CO2 is not only not bad - its beneficial and preferable.

The big problem with the CO2 hysteria (such as in the OP) is that it's myopic and agenda driven. "You've got to consume less" - which is true, regardless, but bellies the point that such propaganda is directed at Western countries which produce both less CO2 per capita and in total vs countries like India and China, which have effectively zero efforts in place to reduce its production. It's clearly aimed at the Western countries to hamper them economically. Outside factors, like solar output, are never considered in these breathless press releases about global warming. Notice how "global warming" is conveniently replaced with "climate change" in the media during periods of low solar output? We're now nearing the peak of the ~11 year solar cycle with the solar maximum likely to occur this year. Expect seeing more "global climate change" in the news in the coming years...