> What about working to save the planet from the very much real, devastating effects of climate change do you find “ridiculous beyond description”?

A few things.

First, the planet will be just fine. It has endured much worse than any of the imaginary scenarios being tossed about these days.

Second. It is nothing less than hubris to think we can actually control something at a planetary scale. We are far more likely to kill everything in sight than to save the planet. The whole thing is laughable.

And, BTW, this isn't my opinion, this is a scientific fact that a 15 year old with basic math skills can confirm inside five minutes. Since there's no financial or political power in saying "we are sorry, this is all nonsense" the money keeps flowing in that direction.

Find just a single non-trivial funded program trying to refute the current narratives. You can't. Nobody wants to fund that research. No scientist wants to talk about it that angle because, in todays context, it would end their career instantly. People are making way too much money in an "Emperor has no clothes" utopia relentlessly promoted by industry, government and the media.

Here's a reality check:

Anyone who thinks we can control matters of planetary scale, kindly show how we immediately controlled and stopped the effects of the massive fires in Canada, the fires in Maui, etc.

I mean, seriously, can we have some intellectual honesty around this topic?

Just looking at the Canadian fires [0]. Just this year, over 132,000 square kilometers burned. These fires have already released the equivalent of a full year or Indonesia [1] burning fossil fuels (a country with nearly 300 million people).

And how about these fires [2][3][4]?

Let's show how we can control these events and then, maybe then, we can speak of regional control. Global control is a fantasy.

I mean, they are doing things like throwing billions of dollars at giant air sucking filtering machines. We have gone completely insane.

More?

OK.

Look out this chart:

https://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/styles/original/p...

Now, let's magically erase China and USA from the planet. We have Star Trek beam everything on these lands into space, never to be seen on earth again. That removes 44% of CO2 emissions. That isn't even close to being enough. That isn't enough to STOP CO2 accumulation, much less REVERSE it.

If CO2 emissions went to absolute ZERO tomorrow, it would take somewhere between 50K and 100K years for atmospheric CO2 accumulation to come down by 100 ppm (this is a scientifically known fact). That's how ridiculous the "save the planet" narrative has become. It is so far away from attainable reality that anyone pushing it should be laughed off the stage.

I mean, removing all of humanity from the planet means 100K years for a 100ppm drop. And we are talking about fixing it in 50, 100 or 200 years...with electric cars and water heaters? Have we gone mad?

[0] https://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/here-s-a-look-at-what-s-happen...

[1] https://www.worldometers.info/co2-emissions/co2-emissions-by...

[2] https://www.wired.com/2015/03/johnny-haglund-the-earth-is-on...

[3] https://www.history.com/news/mine-fire-burning-more-50-years...

[4] https://www.atlasobscura.com/lists/places-that-are-always-on...