Climate groups demand Big Tech censor climate change "misinformation"

submitted by [deleted] from reclaimthenet.org

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

view the rest of the comments →

[–]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?