Reasonable Questions

 https://x.com/chrismartzwx/status/2079569981549744453?s=51&t=cLq01Oy84YkmYPZ-URIMYw

 Here are TEN questions that I have for any climate alarmists reading, and I hope I can get some honest answers down in the comments: You have asserted that the planet is dangerously overheating. So, what exactly is the correct globally averaged surface air temperature supposed to be and why? I want an exact value to the nearest tenth of a degree Celsius. What is the correct atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO₂) level to optimize life on Earth? Give me your answer as an exact value in mole fraction or volume percentage, then explain why in detail. A range would suffice too, but you still need to explain. What makes CO₂ “air pollution”? The pre-Trump 2.0 EPA considered CO₂ as an air pollutant under the legal framework of the Clean Air Act, and their justification was that it “contributes to greenhouse gas pollution that threatens public health and welfare.” But that seems pretty ambiguous if you ask me. By that arbitrary standard, water vapor (H₂O) should also be classified as harmful “air pollution” because it also is a GHG and is a byproduct of combustion. But we don't classify it as pollution because, well, H₂O is necessary for life on Earth. But so is CO₂. Without it, we would all die. Why are global average temperatures measured in reference to the 1850–1900 baseline? While many of our modern instrumental weather records begin within that timeframe, we know that climate conditions pre-1900 were much harsher than they are today as we were coming out of the Little Ice Age. Winters were harsher. Summers could be harsher. Droughts, floods, and famine were just as, if not more common relative to today. So, why should the end of the Little Ice Age be seen as the ideal baseline for human welfare? The estimated cost of net zero in the U.S. by the year 2050 is ~$6 trillion (though estimates I have seen widely vary). And with ~165 million taxpayers in the nation, using that $6T figure, it would cost each of us a little more than $36,000 to achieve. That's a lot of money per individual. How many of you activists are willing to shell out that kind of money just to see what happens? If we spent that $6T to decarbonize the economy by 2050, by how much will such measures reduce the global mean surface temperature by the year 2100? Please provide your answer to the nearest tenth of a degree Celsius and show your math (I actually know the answer to this theoretically, but I want to see you do the math). What does the perfect climate look like? Just how much extreme weather should there be? How many floods? Tornadoes? Category two hurricane landfalls in Florida? What should temperatures be? How many droughts should occur per century in Cambodia? How will we get there and how do we know when / if we get there? By what scientific measure will we know? If “combating climate change” is really a global concerted effort, then why do you always give China and India a free pass to continue emitting without bound? Why are they never criticized? And don't tell me it's because they are “the world's factory.” The U.S. is the second largest industrial manufacturer in the world. Don't give me the “per capita emissions” BS either; the atmosphere does not care about that. So, why is it that the U.S. is always dunked on? Why do most of (not all) you vehemently oppose nuclear power? It's the best alternative to coal and natural gas, and statistically it is the cleanest and one of the safest forms of “carbon-free” energy. Lastly, if you truly believe climate change is an urgent problem, why do you continue to use social media? After all, it has a large carbon footprint because it is powered by those data centers you hate. Also, why do demonize fossil fuels, but use them to keep the lights on in your home or apartment? Why use running water and indoor plumbing, which often require fossil fuels? Why not give up modern luxuries and live off grid to lead by example? I really want to know why you are still here.