It has been known for over 100 years that CO2 is a potent greenhouse gas (i.e., that it traps infrared radiation preventing it from re-radiating into space thus heating the atmosphere). Without some CO2 in our atmosphere, Earth would be much colder, but its concentration needs to remain over a relatively small range to make much of the Earth inhabitable.
True, with CO2 below 182 ppm life will not survive. But there is also a limit where adding more CO2 does not cause more temperature rise. Some (The Royal Society f.e.) denies the latter fact, but they tell half of the story.
They say (quote):
"Different gases absorb energy at different wavelengths. CO2 has its strongest heat-trapping band centred at a wavelength of 15 micrometres (millionths of a metre), with wings that spread out a few micrometres on either side. There are also many weaker absorption bands. As CO2 concentrations increase, the absorption at the centre of the strong band is already so intense that it plays little role in causing additional warming. However, more energy is absorbed in the weaker bands and in the wings of the strong band, causing the surface and lower atmosphere to warm further."
When the weaker bands and the wings of the strong bands are saturated as well, temperature rising stops due to CO2. So their story contain only a partial truth which is misleading.
From robthebold diagram above we see how temperature gradually rises, but if you would overlay a graph with CO2 levels over that period of time which are obtained from ice core borings, you will see that CO2 levels lag behind the temperature levels about 800 years. So rising temps caused rising CO2 in the atmosphere in the past. Whether these findings are valid in our time is still debated. That hockeystick diagram has already been dismissed as false. One possible reason is that weather stations that were placed in rural areas long time ago, are now encapsulated by urban development and therefore show a higher reading. So the measured temperature rise on earth is biased and may not be as big as shown to us.
Furthermore, the biggest greenhouse gas in the atmosphere is water vapor, about 3x more potent than CO2 and it's presence is abundant, while CO2 is just 400 ppm at the moment, a very small quantity. Yet nobody talks about removing water vapor to cool down the earth ;-)
We still do not understand the complicated influence of water vapor versus cloud building (reflects solar radiation). Higher temperatures mean more water vapor, means more clouds, mean more reflection of solar heat, means cooler planet. Also, variable cosmic radiation has it's influence on cloud building according to recent research. In my opinion and others, there is not enough knowledge to say that CO2 is the root cause of global climate change. I do not deny that it probably has an effect, but it is limited, let alone due to human activity. Again, science has no overall consensus here.
The fact that humans have released into the atmosphere in a period of a century carbon that had been buried underground for millions of years without any effect is absurd. Yes, plants can absorb CO2 and release O2, but humans are also destroying much of the plant life that could absorb some of this ancient carbon. However, there was never enough plant life to absorb all of the additional ancient carbon, and once CO2 rises above the surface of the earth, there are no natural processes to destroy it, so it will remain in the atmosphere for hundreds and probably thousands of years.
I would like to bring the following article to your attention (with actual links to scientific sources):
https://dailysceptic.org/2024/07/20...ts-start-arguing-we-need-to-save-the-deserts/
Atmospheric scientists around the world, the people who understand what's happening to the atmosphere better than anyone else, are almost unanimous in their belief that humans are the main cause of catastrophic climate change that is occurring way faster than at any time on the past on earth other than after a huge meteorite impact. The natural processes that you allege are causing climate change occur over a much longer period of time and can't explain what it happening today.
Yes, I understand that
atmospheric scientists have this belief, because from their perspective, that is what they found out. Still they cannot explain what is happening today either, so their point of view must be a limited/partial one. Atmospheric science draws heavily upon modelling and computer models, and we know that with the "right" input you can make a model to "prove" whatever you want. Garbage in, garbage out in other words. It is manipulable, choose a specific set of inputs to show a desirable outcome. Of course, serious scientists won't do this. But scientists are also just humans with a family, a mortgage and a career they do not want to lose. So there is no guarantee that they will be as honest as science want us to believe. That is why I do not trust any scientist or institution just because.
Working for a world famous institute, having a Ph.d. does not guarantee that someone tells or knows the truth. Science does not work that way; a hypothesis may be supported by evidence for some time, until other evidence proves the hypothesis wrong. That is why an open debate is of utmost importance, but somehow this discussion does not reach mainstream science or mainstream media. That brings me to this article about the climate science that has been hijacked bij political and financial interests (hope you will check it out as it may also apply to the institute you worked with):
https://clintel.org/those-who-can-make-you-believe-absurdities-can-make-you-commit-atrocities/
Instead, we must depend on experts who study the climate for a living, and these experts have overwhelming evidence of many different kinds that human activity is the dominant cause of climate change.
We as mere mortals have the moral obligation to question those experts that are dependent on supporting a specific narrative for their living. I do not say every expert is wrong doing, only that they might be biased and we should be aware of that. The above article shows how climate research can be misused for a different agenda, and scientists may not even be aware of this. From the club of Rome:
A link to a lecture from William Happer with interesting climate physics explained (and not how mainstream science tells us):
From astrophysicist point of view:
https://www.freedom-research.org/p/professor-valentina-zharkova-and
A climate documentary:
Here is a breakdown of the sixth IPCC report, where many mistakes are identified (free downloadable report/book): https://clintel.nl/download-ipcc-book-report-2023/
To conclude, I value any personal opinion on this subject and what I hope to find consensus on that we still know too little to be able to conclude that mankind and it's CO2 footprint is the root cause of climate change as we see it in our lifetime. Because of the immense consequences for the average citizen in the form of loss of freedom of movement and choice, the tax burden to pay for all the efforts to bring down CO2, the submission to CO2-social-credit systems etc. it better be. Personally, I don't dig it.
It doesn't have any options that aren't available on any 2021 i3S and no special paint or trim color. The only major option it's missing is a HK entertainment system which I would think a BMW special edition would have. Someone painted the brake calipers, but that's not enough to make it a special edition.
