Comments by "" (@josephcoon5809) on "13 Misconceptions About Global Warming" video.

A) I have yet to find (and I’ve asked plenty of alarmists) any models or ensembles of model that are effective over more than a few decades. Moreover, they shy away from back casting and forecasting from historical points in time. B) Atmospheric CO2 is affected by many different cycles (a large part of my skepticism). This means there are processes that add AND processes that remove CO2 from the atmosphere. Why are all these people hell bent on trying to convince others of their expert grasp of atmospheric science year after year? Preventing CO2 from entering the atmosphere is NOT the only way to stop the rise. More importantly, it won’t reduce higher levels. How about focusing on sequestration technologies that are viable in the free market? That would negate the time and energy wasted on an incomplete understanding of atmospheric processes. I enjoy this channel, for the most part, but this video was designed to make “deniers” ( let’s be honest, skeptics are rolled into the same category) seem like scientific novices and arrogant in their ignorance. That is a dishonest portrayal of the actual issues of the debate: expert use of best guesses (“parameterization”). It was convenient showing the results that worked best to support your case, but failed to mention how those models are derived. Dishonest, to say the least.
12
While many can agree that politicians are prone to lying, it can also be said that scientists are prone to hubris laced errors. I’m agnostic on the global warming debate. I am firmly convinced that mankind has neither the understanding of atmospheric processes to develop an accurate model OR the computing ability to run such a model accurately. I do not believe we can honestly say HOW MUCH industrialization has affected the atmosphere. That said, it’s still a problem, at least, because many people BELIEVE (again, I do not see how anybody can know especially when they continually conflate causation and correlation) that it is a problem. So, it is worthy to find a solution for it. I contemplate the problem, not because I think it’s a problem, but because it has meta problems associated with it. One being a constant waste of time and energy arguing about it. Another being the use of government to force a change in life over a belief structure not rooted in precise language or science. And a far reaching problem of developing terraforming technologies. The typical discussion is emotional which makes it practically useless. Once more people let go of their emotions, the quicker we can get down to rational and practical discussion about viable solutions.
3
I crunched the numbers for 2014 emission rates and applied it to hemp growth rate and sequestration rate. A hectare of hemp can sequester 22t of C in one crop; a crop takes roughly 100 days; I calculated for 2 crops per year (I don’t see why 3 crops wouldn’t be feasible). To sequester 2014’s amount of combusted CO2 emissions would require a bit over 3 million square miles of land. That the start of the discussion. Ancillary to that would be used for hemp fiber, and there are plenty of burgeoning technologies along those lines: hemp plastics, hemp wood, hempcrete, among others. Another consideration is moving hemp agriculture underground which could also be applied to other industries. Imagine moving factories, warehouses, and various other large construction to subterranean environs which would allow Nature to begin reclaiming the surface. As for why aren’t countries not adopting it? Because people are short-sighted and only care about short explanations, quick fixes, and feeling good aboutbtheir thought processes. People are only bothered to take a discussion as far as they need to to “accept a plausible opinion” without taking the time to fully understanding the problem. If you don’t fully understand the problem, you can’t develop the best solutions. This results in people BELIEVING that there is a problem by acquiescing to authority figures then voting for OTHER people to solve the problem. EVERYBODY has a brain designed specifically for solving problems, but society has relinquished that ability to emotional rhetoric and personal greed. Humankind doesn’t need government to solve problems. They have everything they need. The only thing they lack is the drive to dream. That’s the downside of being an adult: you stop dreaming about the important things. Imagining a future is the easy part. Imagining the path to get there is the difficult but exciting part.
2
A solution is developed by solving a series of functions: Problem: Too much CO2 > What to do?: sequester CO2 > With what?: hemp > What do we do with hemp?: manufacture everything possible and store blocks of it for future manufacturing A large supply of hemp would, necessarily, crash the cost of manufacturing with it dramatically (supply and demand). Even if the supply of hemp fiber is much higher than the demand for manufacturing with it at this point, the large supply would also make research & development of hemp technologies cheaper, accessible, and happen far quicker. Once the technologies and manufacturing demands catch up with the supply, it’s just a matter of slowly replacing current products with ever increasingly advanced hemp-based material products. In essence, a subterranean hemp agricultural system would be like an artificial lung for Earth. Extrapolating even further into the future, this would be a precursor to terraforming technologies necessary for space exploration/colonization. Problems have multiple aspects, consequently, solutions do to. Freeing yourself from the mundane and pointless arguments of common discourse allows your brain to do what it is designed to do: explore possibilities.
2
Which method is best? The method that doesn’t focus ONLY on carbon sequestration. The best solutions are a conglomeration of the actual solution to the problem at hand and practical uses for the results of that solution. Sequestering carbon into a form that can be applied to other demands creates a synergy that does not require governmental coercion. The best solution is ALWAYS the one that benefits the most people; if the solution is mutually beneficial with no compromise necessary, even better. Scientific study benefits greatly from extreme specialization. However, that specialization creates a problem of “forest for the trees.” Without developing the ability to step back and looking at a larger portion of the picture, you run the risk of missing critical associations between concepts of different areas of study and understanding. Scientists are essential for helping us understand “how and why”, but it’s entrepreneurs and innovators that take that information and address “what for.” We need to understand the fine details AND the aggregation of those details. That is how the brain works, unfortunately, that’s not how society works. If you look at society through the lens of neurobiology and psychology (like each individual was considered a neuron in a brain), you’d determine that society suffers from multiple critical psychological dysfunctions.
2