• dotslashme@infosec.pub
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    7 months ago

    Ah yes of course. We can’t even agree if methane will have an accelerating effect or if methane simply breaks down too fast to have a significant effect. The obvious solution is to add more things and see if it helps. Great plan!

    • DarkThoughts@fedia.io
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      7 months ago

      Ah yes of course. We can’t even agree if methane will have an accelerating effect or if methane simply breaks down too fast to have a significant effect.

      They aren’t suggesting to pump methane in the atmosphere.

      The obvious solution is to add more things and see if it helps. Great plan!

      That’s our current course already, since co2 emissions in the atmosphere are still skyrocketing.

      • dotslashme@infosec.pub
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        7 months ago

        Bad wording on my part. I mean that we cannot even agree on the effects one more heat-trapping gas would have, and now we plan to add yet another thing that apparently caused a year without summer. Forgive me for having little faith in people that thinks we should pump some other crap up there and see what happens.

        • DarkThoughts@fedia.io
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          7 months ago

          We do actually agree on that adding more greenhouse gasses is bad. Just because methane breaks down quicker does not mean it is beneficial for our already heating climate. The people who argue against it are typically part of the agriculture lobby, specifically cattle herders etc.

          We have seen a similar bullshit resistance with coal miners and the argument of “clean coal”. Or with ICE cars and how badly EV batteries are or how they’re powered by dirty power plants, etc. It’s all bad faith bullshit.