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 -  (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.

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

Wear a condom, always, just in case, stay safe, STAY SAFE

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

wink gotcha.

[–]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 -  (0 children)

Yeah? Well NASA says that our world's oceans have risen 100 milliliters since the early 90's.

Maybe you can explain that to them.

[–]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?

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

Nah, I don't play all that Satan bullshit.

Try that crap on someone else.

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

Satan?

Albert A. Michelson and Edward W. Morley were some kind of holy crusade?

Or are they the forces of Satan?

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

Ok, I looked up that bullshit and it doesn't seem likely that light can travel thru empty space, cuz there ain't no D cell batteries in space to make no light.

That's just plain old common sense.

[–][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?