LOL... real scientists actually measure things, as opposed to make them up.
And obviously CC IS REAL... did not say otherwise...
In point of fact, a real scientist ( the kind who actually measures things ) noted
back during 9/11 that the three day grounding of air travel did in fact cause a
"measurable" and immediate cooling effect. As I noted with 90+% of air traffic
grounded, after 6+ weeks, we have what??? And for those who don't know,
air travel alone is 20% of ALL liquid fuel use. Actual oil sales are down over
30+ % world wide ( even with some "buyers" trying to boost the price by putting
it in strategic oil reserves... ) think about that one... and over a much longer
period.
Like I suggested... if anthropogenic isn't quite the big deal we thought it was...
we better find out what is, 'cuz it looks like we have near zero input in the CC
situation. AND if we have zero input... ( whether we started it or not ) we're
literally along for the ride and wasting our time discussing the matter.
Personally I hope we have at least some input.
You are absolutely INCORRECT about what happened in the days after 9/11 and what it demonstrated to scientists. What was discovered was that in the days after 9/11 because of ZERO air traffic, they discovered that global warming is WORSE than previously thought, because they found that the exhaust trails from the air traffic was actually BLOCKING sunlight, and without them, the average daily temperature increased. What this means is that if global air traffic WASN'T blocking a significant amount of sunlight on a daily basis, global warming would be WORSE.
Here is the article:
https://www.cnn.com/2002/TECH/science/08/07/contrails.climate/index.html
On the topic of climate change, it isn't unique to our civilization, in fact, since the first signs of domestication approximately 10,000 years ago, literally, without exception, EVERY SINGLE ITERATION OF CIVILIZATION HAS COLLAPSED AND LARGELY DUE TO, IF NOT ENTIRELY DUE TO, ENVIRONMENTAL DEGRADATION! Only hubris and ignorance make us believe our civilization is any different. The undeniable fact is, and this is based on 10,000 years of empirical data, there has yet to be a single civilization that is environmentally and ecologically sustainable. period. Anthropology 101 teaches us that the basis of civilization is agriculture and domestication, without agriculture, surplus cannot be generated, and without surplus, you cannot have specialization and division of labor or social/economic hierarchy, both required for civilization. Basically, if there's no agriculture, there's no civilization....so then, the root of the issue is agriculture, and so far, there isn't a single example of agriculture or horticulture (including "permaculture") that has been empirically proven to be sustainable in the long run....what this means is that civiliztion, based on all the evidence we currently have, IS INHERENTLY UNSUSTAINABLE and no amount of technology has been able to overcome that.
Technology!!! Let's just be honest, technology is basically the main cause of the inevitable environmental crisis. Advanced technology inherently necessitates an unsustainable global industrial order with highly centralized hierarchy and a large, subjugated work force...there's literally no other way to create advanced technology....don't believe me, just look up the mineral Coltan and how it's basically essential to every PCB, but is extremely rare and only exists in four places on earth (One of which is Africa and has been a direct cause of resource wars)...only a highly centralized, authoritarian and hierarchical system of logistics can manage the challenges behind Coltan and the products that require it. Basically, what I'm saying is, that no matter what, there are certain inherent characteristics of advanced technology than can never be altered or changed, namely that advanced technology cannot be ecologically sustainable. However, there's an even bigger problem posed by technology, and that's the psychological phenomenon of "Techno-Optimism", which is the ignorant belief in the ability of technology to miraculously solve every problem, and nearly everyone on earth is guilty of it. I can guarantee that 99% of the people on this website, whether they want to admit it or not, truly believe that some miracle technology will be created to miraculously solve the impending environmental crisis without having to make any sacrifice, and they have a relgious-like faith in this belief
despite NOT having a single shred of empirical evidence to suggest this is even possible. Sorry to break the news, but as it stands, there is literally no empirical evidence to suggest that technology can solve this problem, NOR are there any potential realistic technologies that even suggest a possibility of technology solving this crisis....and yet....nearly everyone out there has an unshakable belief in this eventually occurring. (BTW, research has shown that Americans are by far the most "techno-optimistic" people on earth.
The ONLY way this environmental crisis will be avoided is through a deep, profound, revolutionary, radical, and fundamental reassessment and questioning of every foundation of our society and civilization (and whether civilization itself can ever be sustainable, because so far, there's no evidence to suggest that it is...just consider how Homo Sapiens lived in ecological balance with nature for 98% of our time on this planet as hunter-gatherers (190,000 to 290,000 years depending on whom you ask), but in the past 10,000, we have yet to demonstrate a single instance of civilization doing the same.) If anybody thinks that we have any shot of avoiding the environmental crisis without profound sacrifice, you're sadly mistaken. You can either have your precious iPhone, or clean air, food and water, but not both., so grow up and accept it, because everyone, with respect to the environment is acting like a bunch of babies not wanting to give up their unnecessary toys do our species doesn't go extinct (don't bother responding with ad hominem personal attacks against me, as they literally do absolutely nothing to disprove any of the arguments I've made and just demonstrate that you're incapable of mounting a real counter-argument)
