[AustinMike]

Originally Posted by Mark17

Totally agree. Here's how I frame it, using stats everybody agrees with, and math so simple everyone can understand:

You start strong then devolve into misinformation with crooked framing.

Originally Posted by Mark17

The level of CO2 in the atmosphere is about 400 parts per million

Good start. The 2018 worldwide average CO2 level was 407.4 ppm.

Originally Posted by Mark17

Of that, about 5% is attributable to humans (20 parts per million)

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?

Originally Posted by Mark17

Since India and China won't play, any effort to reduce CO2 will only deal with perhaps half of that (10 parts per million)

Total nonsense. There are so many things wrong with that one statement, I don’t know where to begin. But I’ll try.

First: In picking China (9.3 giga tons (GT)) and India (2.2 GT) you picked the countries with the highest and third highest total CO2 emissions in 2017. You left out the country with the second highest total CO2 emissions (4.8 GT). The country with the second highest total CO2 emissions had more than twice the total of India, yet you chose India as a country that “won’t play.” Why is that? Is it because the U.S. is number 2?

Second: In using total CO2 emissions per country as your metric, you are totally missing the point of the agreement that you claim China and India “won’t play” with. The agreement is supposed to allocate reductions in a fair manner. Therefore, it considers CO2 emissions per person. In looking at it this way, China drops to number 12 (6.5 tons per person) and India to number 20 (1.6 tons per person). Who’s number one you ask? Saudi Arabia (16.1 tons per person). Why didn’t you name them as a non-player? Why didn’t you name Australia (number 2 at 15.6 tons per person), Canada (number 3 at 14.9 tons per person), U.S. (number 4 at 14.6 tons per person), or South Korea (number 5 at 11.7 tons per person)?
https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/eac...-co2-emissions

Third: India is playing. They’re actions are compatible with keeping a limit on temperature growth to less than 2 degrees C. Whose actions aren’t you ask? Of the countries listed above, Australia and Canada are insufficient. China and South Korea are highly insufficient. Saudi Arabia and U.S. are critically insufficient. https://climateactiontracker.org/countries/

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.

Originally Posted by Mark17

The most aggressive climate proposals are to cut CO2 emissions by 25% (2.5 parts per million)

More nonsense based on bad assumptions and bad math.

Originally Posted by Mark17

Does anybody really believe reducing CO2 by 2 and one half parts per MILLION would dramatically change the climate?

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.

Originally Posted by Mark17

CO2 isn't poison- it is required for all plant life (trees, grasses, plants, vegetables, algae, etc.) Trying to reduce an already tiny number by an infinitesimally smaller number is foolish to the extreme.

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.”?

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?