you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]Davethe_blank_ 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (43 children)

well of course they do. Their entire position is based in complete bullshit. And their solutions are the fucking worst. This is what communist do. But if the misinformation was truly silenced, then the climate hysteria propaganda would end.

[–]ActuallyNot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (42 children)

Their entire position is based in complete bullshit.

You claim that there's no such thing as the greenhouse effect?

[–]Bigs 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

There's no such thing as man-made CO2 making the planet hotter, no.

What makes you think there is, when the hypothesis was debunked many years ago and the main players were exposed for lying and fucking the figures, also years ago?

Didn't you even hear about that? Yikes!

[–]ActuallyNot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

There's no such thing as man-made CO2 making the planet hotter, no.

So only man made CO2 isn't a greenhouse gas?

Natural CO2 is?

What makes you think there is, when the hypothesis was debunked many years ago and the main players were exposed for lying and fucking the figures, also years ago?

The main players being every University and private s research institution on the planet?

Didn't you even hear about that? Yikes!

I certainly didn't.

[–]Bigs 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (4 children)

CO2 is a greenhouse gas like paint is a colorful coloring - after the first coat adding extra makes no real difference.

So yes, technically it's a 'greenhouse gas' but we could double or triple the current level without making any noticeable difference to Earth's temperature. That is the actual science of it.

A few points to consider - CO2 has NEVER been shown to raise temperatures. Ever. It has always been seen to raise AFTER the temps go up, meaning warmer seawater releases more CO2, cooler absorbs it. There has never, ever, been a time when CO2 actually lead the increase (outside of bullshit computer models that have been consistently wrong for 30 years).

Second point, man's contribution to CO2 is around 4%. We could double or triple our output and the Earth's natural systems would just shrug, indeed it would enjoy it because more plants would grow and they'd grow bigger. It would NOT raise the temperature.

A third point, Climategate back in 2009 proved beyond doubt the 'scientists' were lying, fucking with the figures, hiding data, and in their own words, their models and computer code were "dogshit".

Forth point, the entire scam depends on those dogshit computer models, and those models declared a 'hot spot' above the tropics, would would be the absolute proof of the hypothesis, and elevate it to a theory, dammit! Except when we did train satellites and get hot air balloons to the relevant area... There was no fucking hotspot. The hypothesis has, by their own words again, been debunked.

Yes, they twisted like pretzels and I'm sure Google will tell you the hospot wasn't necessary for the hypothesis (it's the fucking foundation of it) has been proven to exist (only by torturing the data, like that did in 2009..), or whatever bullshit is the current stage of the narrative - because that's how $cience works today.

But all of that will bounce off you, because 'reasons' and bullshit from mainstream media and big, well-connected entities making a fortune gaslighting you.

I bet you believe the covid19 vaccines are safe and effective too? I bet you think a surgical mask will stop a virus too? Because big, well-connected orgs that stand to make fortunes and inflict ever more power and control over people never, ever lie through their fucking teeth and take you for a schmuck, huh?

Again?

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

Well said, sir 🙏

[–]ActuallyNot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Wow. That's an impressive amount of wrong things.

CO2 is a greenhouse gas like paint is a colorful coloring - after the first coat adding extra makes no real difference.

There is something funny about the line "There's too much CO2 in the atmosphere to make any more difference" when other climate science deniers in this thread are arguing "CO2 is not prevalent enough, nor will it ever be enough to be a driver of the temperature due to greenhouse gas effect."

You're both wrong of course. The climate sensitivity to CO2 is about 3°C, and has been between 1.5 and 6.2 °C for 420 million years. So it's over a very robust range of CO2 concentrations that doubling or halving the concentration makes a significant difference to the climate.

CO2 has NEVER been shown to raise temperatures. Ever.

This is a new one. "The greenhouse effect doesn't work for CO2". If the earth wasn't subject to CO2 greenhouse effect, you get a snowball earth, with a mean surface temperature of -21°C.

It has always been seen to raise AFTER the temps go up,

See how temperatures bottomed out in about 1910, but CO2 was already increasing by 1880? https://www.globalchange.gov/browse/multimedia/global-temperature-and-carbon-dioxide

Guess you're wrong then.

Climategate back in 2009 proved beyond doubt the 'scientists' were lying, fucking with the figures, hiding data, and in their own words, their models and computer code were "dogshit".

You've been drinking the cool aid a bit on that one, Bigs. There were a lot of quotes taken out of context in the denialosphere, but correctly understood, it showed good work being done by dedicated people.

Forth point, the entire scam depends on those dogshit computer models,

No it doesn't. There's lots of independent estimates of climate sensitivity to CO2.

https://www.science.org/doi/abs/10.1126/science.1203513

https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/clim/15/22/1520-0442_2002_015_3117_aobeot_2.0.co_2.xml

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2004JD005557

and those models declared a 'hot spot' above the tropics, would would be the absolute proof of the hypothesis,

The "hot spot" above the tropics is due to a warmer ocean. It has nothing to do with CO2. A warm ocean makes the bottom of the atmosphere warmer, and that warmth is magnified above because the extra water in the atmosphere makes the rate of cooling with increasing height (the lapse rate) slower. This is due to both water having a high specific heat, and water condensing into clouds and releasing the latent heat of vaporisation back to the atmosphere at that height.

I bet you believe the covid19 vaccines are safe and effective too?

They're much safer than getting CoVID, and effective at reducing hospitalisations and deaths.

I bet you think a surgical mask will stop a virus too?

They reduce transmission. If you wear them.

Because big, well-connected orgs that stand to make fortunes and inflict ever more power and control over people never, ever lie through their fucking teeth and take you for a schmuck, huh?

What, big solar power is funding enough scientists to produce half a million scholarly papers in the past decade?

You realise that unlike fossil fuels, no one owns sunshine? The only ones with a fortune in the climate science are the ones who want you to not believe it.

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

I read the Climategate emails myself. That you defend them tells me everything about you and your response, which is why I won't bother correcting your errors, which are not in good faith.

Oh wow, lol, and I see you do support the experimental jabs ("A coronavirus vaccine will work this time, for sure!") and masks lol.

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

I read the Climategate emails myself

All 160MB of them eh?

How long did that take you?

That you defend them tells me everything about you and your response, which is why I won't bother correcting your errors, which are not in good faith.

People who misunderstood the climate hate emails usually bow out of conversations about the details.

I guess that's how they maintain their misperceptions.

Oh wow, lol, and I see you do support the experimental jabs ("A coronavirus vaccine will work this time, for sure!") and masks lol.

Experimental?

Did you know that the public are recieving them now? Most people have their fifth booster. How many billions of shots are given before it's no longer "experimental"?

and masks lol.

What can you possibly have against a mask? Did you know they've been used to reduce transmission of infection in hospitals since the late 1800s?

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

Yes, there is a greenhouse effect, but corporations pollute more CO2 than the average person does. So they hit the poor over the head with a bat with guilt and taxes to fight climate change but not the corporations.

[–]ActuallyNot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Individuals, and particularly the poor suffer the greatest consequences of climate change and are least responsible for it.

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

Yet corporations are left off the hook.

[–]DirewolfGhost 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Greens are anti-nuclear (and by default pro-coal). They will never be taken seriously until they are pushing nuclear plants more than they are pushing veganism and abortion. They're just a bunch of retarded crybully hypocrites.

[–]ActuallyNot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

They're not bastions of great science. They tend to be anti-GM and anti-nuclear.

Neither of those are obviously more retarded than climate science denial.

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

It is hard to judge the most retarded retard. Especially since everyone is at least a little retarded.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (20 children)

I'd like to chime in with some harmful misinformation 🤚

We are told that co2 is a greenhouse gas and that it is warming up the planet. Science suggests that there is some correlation between temperature and levels of co2, but doesn't determine which is the cause and which is the result. It could be that a warmer planet results in higher co2 levels. The mainstream stance is that the science is settled and that any question of this is anti-science, climate denial conspiracy theory.

[–]ActuallyNot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (19 children)

Science suggests that there is some correlation between temperature and levels of co2, but doesn't determine which is the cause and which is the result.

Yes it does. We can estimate how much CO2 has been generated by combustion of fossil fuels, and the atmospheric increase is about half that.

And we can track where it went, to a certain extent. The oceans, and except in years with exceptionally large forest loss, the terrestrial biosphere are absorbing CO2, not releasing it.

The mainstream stance is that the science is settled and that any question of this is anti-science, climate denial conspiracy theory.

That's the stance on flat earthers too.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (18 children)

Yes, we are able to track atmospheric levels of CO2, estimate amount of CO2 produced by humans, and we assume there is a correlation between the CO2 and global temperature. But since humans only contribute 0.04% of the worlds CO2, which is about 12ppm, it is implausible to think this is enough to dramatically alter the temperature of the world in comparison to say, a 700,000km diameter hot ball of plasma in nearby space. Temperature and CO2 rises do not always correlate and where temperatures fall and.CO2 lags, it becomes more likely that the sun is responsible for CO2 levels. It would make sense if higher solar temperature influenced higher oceanic algae levels which in turn produced more CO2 for example, but this would indicate that CO2 followed temperatures not the other way around. To believe this, you would in turn have to believe that me farting will improve temperature retention of my home.

Referring to flat earthers is a void argument aimed at delegitimising your opponent through humiliating accusation and has nothing to do.with our conversation. The 'science" was settled on COVID masks when they said it would prevent infection, that was nonsense. The 'science' was settled when they said you couldn't get infected with COVID after a vaccine, that too was nonsense. Science is never settled, otherwise it is dogmatic ideology.

[–]ActuallyNot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (17 children)

and we assume there is a correlation between the CO2 and global temperature.

It's not true that that's assumed.

We calculate that the temperature will rise because of that, from the optics, thermodynamics and physics.

This predicted temperature rise has since been observed, confirming the calculations.

But since humans only contribute 0.04% of the worlds CO2

Okay, this isn't even close. CO2 emissions from fossil fuels and cement production from 1750 to 2020 are 1.7 trillion tonnes. That excludes burning forests for farmland (or from wildfires). There are about 3.2 trillion tonnes in the atmosphere, so humans have contributed about 53% of that.

Temperature and CO2 rises do not always correlate and where temperatures fall and.CO2 lags, it becomes more likely that the sun is responsible for CO2 levels.

Nope, not the sun

On the other hand, the temperature closely resembles what is expected from natural plus anthropogenic forcing, making it likely that the things responsible for the warming are correctly understood.

It would make sense if higher solar temperature influenced higher oceanic algae levels which in turn produced more CO2 for example, but this would indicate that CO2 followed temperatures not the other way around.

For the current warming, temperature has followed CO2.

https://www.climate.gov/media/11048

Temperatures didn't hit a local minimum until the 1900-1910. CO2 was already rising.

The 'science" was settled on COVID masks when they said it would prevent infection, that was nonsense.

Really? I only read that they would reduce in rate of infection. Can you link me to this claim?

The 'science' was settled when they said you couldn't get infected with COVID after a vaccine, that too was nonsense.

Really? I only read that it would reduce infections. Can you link me to that claim too?

Science is never settled, otherwise it is dogmatic ideology.

What is your best scientific evidence that the world is flat?
Or for the existence of the luminiferous aether?

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (16 children)

We calculate that the temperature will rise

Computer models set to predict worst case scenario always predict temperatures will rise. Data collected often demonstrates that co2 follows temperature, not leading temperature. It may be that co2 has nothing to do with the cause of global temperature at all. Look at methane, a far greater risk of being a greenhouse gas which is rarely spoken of and.certainly isn't given a methane tax.like we have a carbon tax, as ground frost melts, methane is released, the higher temperatures release methane.

Okay, this isn't even close.

Correct, I accidentally quoted you the actual current atmospheric co2 content, the actual figure is far less. We only produce about 3% of that which is around 12ppm.

Nope, not the sun

The sun doesn't heat the earth? Holy smokes! Quick, get out you co2 bathing suit next summer, I'm ready for a scorching!

I only read that they would reduce in rate of infection. Can you link me to this claim?

It was documented US government policy until April 2020 that masks were irrelevant and would not protect against infection. Then science suddenly decided it would protect against the spread, which clearly did not occur. There has been no evidence that mask wearing states or countries had.lower infection rates than those who didn't wear masks because an airborne virus does not get filtered by a thin paper mask with no face fitting.

Really? I only read that it would reduce infections. Can you link me to that claim too?

Have you really been hiding under a rock this whole time or are you intentionally pretending that propaganda doesn't exist?

What is your best scientific evidence that the world is flat?

Any reference to flat earthers in a debate is an obvious derailment only intended to delegitimise any statements made by your opponent, the same strategy used in media and government tomshut down discussion when threatened. It's a pathetic attempt to strawman out of a conversation and hope to humiliate with no substance. Science is the active study through observation and experiment. To say that science is settled suggests we stop observing and testing once a few well paid phd's get tenure and to hell with anyone else.

[–]chickenz 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (4 children)

they will debate you into the ground over technical terms, but the reality is that there are so many little factors that add up to a global catastrophe..

water shortage.

oil shortage spills/disasters.

pending ponzi scheme blowups.

add it all up and it spells disaster.

if you look at this thru a pair of glasses that is expecting a black and white answer, you will be deceived.

https://youtu.be/AkSXB-lRAp0

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

True, debating technicalities is a futile game.

I'm still putting my money on a giant meteor hitting California killing us all. 😳

[–]chickenz 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

but this is not a joke.. there are those that want to silence anyone that says that industry has been steadily destroying the earth, and they will debate you into the ground.

it is not as simple as looking at co2.

it is not as simple as looking at any one single factor.

the bottom line is that you fucktards are going to run around chasing your tails and you will wake up and find yourselves in a very tight spot.

the hoover dam is almost empty, it is not producing electricity and there is no water.

california is facing huge water shortages.

not that i really care, because i dont.

wear a mask, stay safe.

[–]ActuallyNot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (10 children)

Computer models set to predict worst case scenario always predict temperatures will rise.

You're suggesting that temperature rise is always the worst scenario? If you like. But obviously irrelevant. Computer models are set to understand the climate.

The calculation of about 3°C per doubling of CO2 predates computers. It was first calculated in the late 1800s. (https://www.rsc.org/images/Arrhenius1896_tcm18-173546.pdf)

Data collected often demonstrates that co2 follows temperature, not leading temperature.

Look at that graph again: https://www.climate.gov/media/11048

No it fucking doesn't. (Not with respect to the current warming. The glaciation periods end with about 5 or 6 thousand years of warming, co-incident with CO2 rise, initiated by CO2 rise for a few hundred years, setting off the positive feedback loop of increased CO2 driving increased temperature driving increased CO2.)

But that's not what's happening now, and it relies on the fact that CO2 causes warming.

It may be that co2 has nothing to do with the cause of global temperature at all.

Not unless it's not a greenhouse. Which it is.

Look at methane, a far greater risk of being a greenhouse gas which is rarely spoken of

It's not rarely spoken of. For instance, in the last few days:

https://cen.acs.org/environment/climate-change/scientists-want-cut-livestocks-methane/100/i36

https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2022/10/nord-stream-pipeline-methane-leaks/

https://www.mining.com/how-to-determine-coal-mines-methane-emissions/

We only produce about 3% of that which is around 12ppm.

I gave you the sources to show that we've produced over half the CO2 in the atmosphere between 1750 and 2020. And you still claim a fucking stupidly low figure like 3%?

Why? What do you hope to gain by repeating obvious bullshit without even attempting to back it up? You won't convince anyone else. Are you trying to convince yourself?

The sun doesn't heat the earth? Holy smokes! Quick, get out you co2 bathing suit next summer, I'm ready for a scorching!

It doesn't cause the current warming. Because there's be no trend in solar irradiance over the past 140 years, but there has been warming over the past 140 years. As you can see clearly from the graph at the link I gave you.

It was documented US government policy

Was it. Can you link me to this document?

Have you really been hiding under a rock this whole time or are you intentionally pretending that propaganda doesn't exist?

I never heard any propaganda claiming 100% effectiveness of masks or vaccines.

Any reference to flat earthers in a debate is an obvious derailment only intended to delegitimise any statements made by your opponent, the same strategy used in media and government tomshut down discussion when threatened.

You claimed that science is never settled. If it's not settled then there must be some arguments for the earth being flat. Or do you agree that science is sometimes settled?

[–]chickenz 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

News update: Florida just sunk like the titanic, so maybe you can make some adjustments to your computer models.

[–]ActuallyNot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Sea level rise and the increase in frequency of high category cyclones are already certain and likely outcomes respectively, of global warming.

[–]chickenz 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

Technically, if the earth were not flat my weed would all fall off the edge of my rolling tray.

[–]ActuallyNot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

How do you feel about the existence of the luminiferous aether?

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

Computer models are set to understand the climate.

Climate prediction models work on worst case scenario.

https://www.foxnews.com/video/5851667173001

Was it. Can you link me to this document?

Fauci's Mask Timeline

https://youtu.be/tRE59LJc6CA

I guess the science isn't always settled.

I never heard any propaganda claiming 100% effectiveness of masks or vaccines.

It's not my fault you live under a rock. If you read an echo chamber of scientific study, you will always reach the same conclusion.

If it's not settled then there must be some arguments for the earth being flat.

I've seen no flat earth argument that can't be refuted with simple science. That said, I personally have no physical way of observing the earth at any great distance other than to rely on that which is provided for us. That's not to say I refute the information given to us, I just find the idea of this being fraudulent unlikely. Whereas to claim carbon is causing global warming and that taxing it will make it all better, that has a likely scenario of making people rich.

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

Climate prediction models work on worst case scenario.

https://www.foxnews.com/video/5851667173001

The Cato Institute are one of the bodies heavily funded by fossil fuel and mining interests. In return they lie about climate change for the public.

The reality is that climate models have been about right. https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2943/study-confirms-climate-models-are-getting-future-warming-projections-right/

Fauci's Mask Timeline

No, the government policy document.

It's not my fault you live under a rock. If you read an echo chamber of scientific study, you will always reach the same conclusion.

No vaccine is 100% effective.

That said, I personally have no physical way of observing the earth at any great distance other than to rely on that which is provided for us.

That's not the only evidence. There's the different time zones, the way that the moon appears rotated depending on your latitude, and that different stars are visible. A flat earth would need some new theory of gravitation, which you'd need to supply. There's multiple lines of evidence, just like climate change.

Whereas to claim carbon is causing global warming and that taxing it will make it all better, that has a likely scenario of making people rich.

You're against science because it might change taxation policy?

[–]Davethe_blank_ 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

CO2 is not prevalent enough, nor will it ever be enough to be a driver of the temperature due to greenhouse gas effect. Water vapor already absorbs the same spectrums.

[–]ActuallyNot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

CO2 is not prevalent enough,

Really. How much CO2 do you claim it would take to raise the temperature by 3°C?

You know, given science estimates about a doubling.

nor will it ever be enough to be a driver of the temperature due to greenhouse gas effect. Water vapor already absorbs the same spectrums.

Exactly? Wow.

So when the James Webb telescope detected CO2 in the atmosphere of WASP-39 b, already known to have water in it, they just lied, because the CO2 would be masked by the water!

And when you look at an absorbance spectrum of the atmosphere, and you see that CO2 main absorption around 4.3 microns doesnt overlap with water at all, and that it fills in the weak absorption of water between about 13 and 17 microns, what do people like you see?

https://qph.cf2.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-6c88e20a95b9388752c995f911591be6-pjlq

[–][deleted]  (1 child)

[deleted]

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

    I see almost all the same areas being covered by water that CO2 does.

    Do you see how CO2 plugs some of the holes?

    4.3 and 13-17 microns?

    ... And you think that no one modelling or measuring absorbance of the atmosphere has noticed?

    [–]Davethe_blank_ 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

    I see almost all the same areas being covered by water that CO2 does. Of course there are small areas of wavelengths that CO2 absorb that water doesn't. But CO2 is .05% of the atmosphere. And STFU about mass spectrometry, you obviously don't know what you're talking about.

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

    And STFU about mass spectrometry,

    Wow. I had no idea that there were people who thought mass spectrometry was the same thing as absorbance spectrometry.

    Is it because the word "spectrometry" appears in both?

    you obviously don't know what you're talking about.

    Oh, the irony.