World's richest 1% cause double CO2 emissions of poorest 50%, says Oxfam

submitted by Pis-dur from (theguardian.com)

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]Yin 7 insightful - 2 fun7 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 2 fun -  (12 children)

CO2 generated by humans isn't pollution and it has very little impact on climate. And the effect it does have isn't a net negative. So it doesn't matter. But I'll remember it as a claim in case a funny argument arises when I can use it.

[–]FediNetizen 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

CO2 generated by humans isn't pollution and it has very little effect on climate.

First statement in that sentence would be patently untrue even if the 2nd were true. Higher concentrations of CO2 lead to detectable cognitive impairment.

There's a reason that our most accurate climate models all assume a moderate degree of climate forcing from higher CO2 levels, and that models that assume little forcing from CO2 fail to accurately predict our current warming trend.

It's the same reason that Venus, which has an atmosphere consisting of mostly CO2, is way hotter than Mercury, despite receiving only 40% of the solar energy per unit area that Mercury does.

It's because CO2 is in fact a greenhouse gas. And yes, it is a net negative; the slightly higher rates of plant growth don't outweigh the land lost to sea level rise and loss of arable land due to rising temperatures.

[–]Yin 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

The article you linked to is mostly scamming hysteria bullshit. My first statement is 100% true. CO2 generated by humans isn't pollution. I'll let you know if it ever gets to the point of a "cognitive impairment" causing level like in a contained study that wants to scare people with fake prediction models.

It's because CO2 is in fact a greenhouse gas

Hardly. Additional CO2 has an exponentially decaying additive effect, not linear, hence why almost all of its temperature influence occurrs from the first 200 ppm and any excess past 300 post-industrial age isn't having a big impact like the fake models wanted people to believe. Additional CO2's impact on climate is minimal and heavily self-regulating with Earth's habitat. Human contribution to it is at most 3%. Earth and humans could stand to benefit from more CO2, but that doesn't sell well for letting globalist criminals "seize the means of production" (globalist-communist policies) through a manufactured doomsday scare.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Venus is a planet in the solar system. It is the object most commonly misidentified as a flying saucer. James Earl Carter, Jr., a President of the United States of America, once thought that he saw a UFO but it was later proven that he had actually seen Venus.

[–][deleted] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

Hey, I have this really unfun thing where I get in immense pain from pressure changes. This Beta shit in the gulf is really fucking my world up right now. BUT once upon 3 or 4 years ago this was just a rare thing. Now it's storm after storm after storm, and it's hard to cope. I plan to go pain management in January and hopefully have them drug me out of my gourd. Not an ideal solution by any means but I can't take these constant storms. The weather has changed. It didn't used to be like this.

On a related note I was wondering if people like me are actually an evolutionary throwback. Before radar and weather satellites it was people like crazy old Musky who let the village know to go to high ground. I dunno, I guess it doesn't matter.

[–]Yin 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

Climate and weather are always changing.

That's unfortunate. Be lucky you weren't born hundreds of years ago when storms were more violent and temperatures were hotter.

It didn't used to be like this.

Yeah, it used to be worse. You're currently in the most stable period of climate humanity has ever experienced. You have to zoom out of the narrow window called "recorded temperatures" that globalist policy-scammers want you to stay focused in for fearmongering that sells their nation-cucking policy.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

I feel like I've become a human fucking barometer and it sucks, but I tell you, this is not normal. You don't want to believe it, fine but go look at all the goddamned storms. They just keep coming one after another. I'm in Texas, we never had so many storms like we are now. I feel them. It used to be maybe a day a month that was bad but it's been almost never ending. Back to back to back.

I'm 40. Maybe if you mean more than 22 years ago that's outside my scope.

[–]SaidOverRed 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Not to downplay, but perhaps it's not everywhere else. Perhaps it's you. I am sensitive to them too, if it helps.

The nice thing is that you can check barometric data. It's been recorded for a long while now...

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Possibly. I have a barometric app, my phone has a sensor that records it. It's interesting watching it on a plane when descending or ascending. For whatever reason, that doesn't hurt. Might have something to do with being in a pressurized cabin.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

weather is same but you're getting older and your body can't handle the pressure changes the same.

[–]Pis-dur[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

It is pollution you are disagreeing with thousands of scientists who have way bigger knowledge and experience on this topic than you. Also, changes are already very visible.

[–]Yin 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Credible climate scientists ("researchers") don't call CO2 pollution and the ones who do are usually political zealots and quacks. Are you also still under the false impression from the lie about a "97% consensus", which was a fake statistic erroneously surmised from a misleading survey question that didn't actually ask any of the responders to what degree they thought man-made CO2 contributed to warming? Responders to the survey later came out against that fake consensus claim, but globalist media and shitlib retards already got the talking points they wanted. The ends justify the means to them.

Start by reading:

https://www.climatedepot.com/2016/02/15/mit-climate-scientist-dr-richard-lindzen-mocks-97-consensus-it-is-propaganda/

https://www.climatedepot.com/?s=lindzen

He's one of many climate scientists who decided to start telling the truth about the charade and who was subsequently crucified by the usual suspects in globalist media who try to ruin the reputation of anyone who exposes them, considering they literally own mainstream media.

I used to be in the bubble. I know it's hard to break out of the bubble, realizing how much propaganda is coming from the top, whose only goal is to make you think you're "saving the planet" by signing on to nation-destroying policies. It's a sham. The contribution effects of human-made CO2 are very minimal. Earth was already in a short term warming period and it's literally in a cooling period if you zoom out.