You start strong then devolve into misinformation with crooked framing.
1. Good start. The 2018 worldwide average CO2 level was 407.4 ppm.
2. Begin the descent. A total WAG number. What is the source of this? Do you realize that at the beginning of the industrial revolution (around the mid-1700s) the concentration was about 280 ppm. That’s an increase of 127 ppm over a 270 year period. How do you know that only 20 ppm of that 127 ppm increase was to due human activity?
Source: https://www.dailysignal.com/2009/03/...lobal-warming/
Out of the entire atmospheric makeup, only one to two percent is made up of greenhouse gases with the majority being nitrogen (about 78 percent) and oxygen (about 21 percent). Of that two percent, “planet-killing” carbon dioxide comprises only 3.62 percent while water vapor encompasses 95 percent. And of the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, humans cause only 3.4 percent of annual CO2 emissions.
3. Total nonsense. There are so many things wrong with that one statement, I don’t know where to begin. But I’ll try.
Fourth: In 2017, an estimated 36.1 GT of CO2 were released into the atmosphere. China and India were responsible for (simple math – ((9.3 GT + 2.2 GT)/36.1 GT) 31.8 % of that. But yet, you attribute 50% of the problem to them? That’s bad math.
If we agree that China and India take 31.8% off the table, and add in all the other countries that likewise won't agree to a CO2 reduction treaty (I'm not sure who that includes, maybe some of the countries you mentioned, maybe the middle east, countries in South America, etc.) I am estimating we get to about 50% of man-made CO2 emissions that would not be part of a climate change accord. But let's not quibble; let's say only the 31.8% is off the table, leaving 68.2% that could be reduced. That's 13.64 Parts Per Million.
4. False argument. Show me one article that says reducing CO2 levels by 2.5 ppm would dramatically change the climate. We’ve seen an increase of 127 ppm over the last 270 years. The climate hasn’t changed “dramatically.” It is changing though.
How aggressive would CO2 reduction need to be then? If we agree a 25% reduction (3.41 Parts Per Million, using our new number) is a drop in the bucket, would we need to reduce our CO2 emissions by 50% (7 PPM?) Would that do it? Or would we need to reduce our CO2 emissions more than 50%? Seriously, and I'd LOVE to have you respond to this - what percentage of our CO2 emissions need to be reduced in order to solve this perceived problem?
Again, where to begin? Let’s go with an analogy.
Did you know that 1 ppm of hydrogen selenide is deemed as immediately dangerous to life or health (IDLH) by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH)? Let’s say you could obtain $1,000,000 by entering a room with 1 ppm of hydrogen selenide in it. Let’s further say that someone said they could reduce it by 0.5 ppm before you went in. Would your response be, “No need, trying to reduce an already tiny number by an infinitesimally smaller number is foolish to the extreme.”?
Ridiculous analogy. CO2 is not a poison; quite the opposite. It is an inert gas required for all life. We exhale it with every breath. All green vegetation requires it, and therefore, all life, right up the food chain.
It’s perfectly fine not to agree with climate change. I don’t understand people who don’t agree with it, but it’s okay. What I don’t understand is, if the only why to support your denial of climate change is with misinformation, bad math, bad science, and illogical reasoning, how reasonable is your denial?
I am doing my best to use accurate information, math, and logical reasoning. As for the "science," I grew up at a time when scientists were warning about global cooling, so I know from experience they can be wrong. And the dozens, if not hundreds, of gloom and doom predictions that never came true reinforce this.