Sunk Cost fallacy from Lefty Friends
(media.kotakuinaction2.win)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (38)
sorted by:
Yes. This is why there's no point arguing with people who rant about global warming. If they were rational, cambrian era CO2 data would have been enough to convince them they were wrong.
What? Life on the planet barely even existed in the Cambrian era, how the fuck is that your argument? Do you even know what you're saying, or is this just repeating a talking point?
'gUyS dOn'T wOrRy AbOuT cO2 BecAuSe SiNgLe CeLl LiFe CoUlD sTiLl ExIsT'
Your reference is a time before the planet even had fucking trees?
Wrong.
Simple. Since the GOE, the UPPER LIMIT of CO2 concentration of the atmosphere has been defined by the LOWER LIMIT of plant life to survive in a CO2 starved environment.
The successive evolution of C3, C4, and CAM respiratory cycles have been the major breakpoints in allowing successively lower and lower CO2 concentrations. Were it not for human intervention, it's entirely possible that C3 life would be suffocated out by the more advanced cycles.
The immediate retort is "if plants are so greedy that they're the limiting factor then how is CO2 concentration climbing?" The answer is evolution. It takes time for plant life to respond to increased CO2 concentration by shifting from more investment in reproduction to more investment in photosynthesis. Also, on a geologic scale, we've barely nudged the needle for atmospheric concentration. A few percent, when over geologic timescales Earth has seen sustained periods of life where the concentration was 10 times higher.
We ARE seeing a transition occur, NASA has confirmed the Earth is becoming "greener" as plants react to the sustained increase in available CO2.
During the time of the dinosaurs, CO2 concentration was such that plant growth was much faster than it is today.