all 66 comments

[–]Tom_Bombadil 3 insightful - 4 fun3 insightful - 3 fun4 insightful - 4 fun -  (49 children)

/u/Actuallynot can you $cience this one up for us?

Let's see some $cience.

[–]ActuallyNot 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (47 children)

Thanks Tom. You correctly spotted that the tweet contained no science. A video of a lava flow and an unsupported claim of a unspecified amount of "billions of tonnes of CO2".

And you're correct to allude to money. These denialist claims are funded by the fossil fuel industry, the most profitable on earth, and we should follow the money when reading claims like this.

The science is it depends on how much and what kind of volcanic activity you get in a year, but a year's volcanic activity can emit a similar amount of CO2 as up to 5 (count them, 5) days of human emissions.

https://www.science.org/content/article/scienceshot-volcano-co2-emissions-no-match-human-activity


I don't want to tell you how to do you job, but you should make up something to explain why volcanoes have increased over the past century, if you want to get people to think that the increased co2 is due to volcanoes. Assuming you're targeting people who don't know that human emissions are 2 orders of magnitude greater.

[–]Jiminy 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

The volcano will lower world temps for a year or two. Blocking sun with soot.

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

Yep. A good volcanic eruption has negative forcing because of the aerosols.

[–]Tom_Bombadil 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (39 children)

"Denialist" is an interesting term.

The only other group with an accusation of "denial" are those who question the "Holocaust".

Alleged Holocaust deniers.

The "science" behind the Holocaust is every bit as dubious as the "science" behind global warming.

In both cases the pubic is expected to "believe" authority figures. It's all smoke and mirrors.

The supporters of both causes refuse to debate the opposition.

[–]ActuallyNot 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (38 children)

I'll leave you to your anti-Semitism, with the suggestion that you seek counselling.

You don't need to trust authority figures to understand climate science. It's not like gravitation, where the mathematics itself is esoteric.

High school level science is sufficient.

[–]Tom_Bombadil 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (37 children)

I'll leave you to your anti-Semitism

Whoa. What are you talking about? I bet you're unfamiliar with what the term semite means.

Anyway, a "scientific" campaign was launched a few years ago. Virtually every public "science" expert agreed.

Most people went along with it.

They volunteered for experimental injections, and almost all of them regret it.

The same people were behind both "science" campaigns.

Nothing esoteric about lying scientists and doctors. Lies and more lies.

[–]ActuallyNot 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (36 children)

Your argument that global warming is an international conspiracy of every scientist in the field fails to convince me.

But in any case, we've measured CO2 emissions from volcanic activity, and they're nowhere near CO2 emissions from human activity. Only about 1%.

Does that answer your questions with respect to this thread?

[–]Tom_Bombadil 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (35 children)

we've measured CO2 emissions from volcanic activity, and they're nowhere near CO2 emissions from human activity. Only about 1%.

Do you have a science source

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

There's plenty for that, but what's wrong with the one i link to in my first comment in this thread?

[–]binaryblob 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (33 children)

You can analyze the raw data from satellites picking up such sources from space these days, although I have no need for that, because basic high school science is enough to understand this. Is there any way you can demonstrate you are not a bot or paid to do this? It's just really bad propaganda. If you want to tell a credible lie, make it so complex that science has absolutely no idea about it.

[–]Tom_Bombadil 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (32 children)

You can analyze the raw data from satellites picking up such sources from space these days, although I have no need for that, because basic high school science is enough to understand this. Is there any way you can demonstrate you are not a bot or paid to do this? It's just really bad propaganda. If you want to tell a credible lie, make it so complex that science has absolutely no idea about it. -binaryblob

Interesting... You respond like an /u/ActuallyNot alt with that corny highschool science line.

cc:
/u/Questionable.
/u/LarrySwinger2.
/u/hfxB0oyA.
/u/Drewski.
/u/IkeConn.
/u/NastyWetSmear.
/u/hfxB0oyA.

Thoughts? Anybody?

[–]binaryblob 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (28 children)

That's because I read his response and found it appropriate. If you are not a bot, you seriously need to do see a doctor for paranoia.

[–]Questionable[S] 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

Strange. I was not notified that I was mentioned in this thread. Are mention notifications broken?

[–]no_u 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

Great response.

My first impression when seeing this popularity of anti-science (& pro-Big Oil in this case) misinformation on Saidit is: why do Saiditors believe so easily in these lies perpetuated by wealthy investors for political gain?

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

What makes you think Saiditors do?

It's incredibly easy to create a bot army of the size of the complete user base of Saidit.

I have said before it's entirely possible everyone is a bot, although ActuallyNot probably isn't. I could make a bot sound like ActuallyNot given enough oil dollars, however. I think if you want "social media", you need to go out to bars again.

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

I often agree with your comments, when they're relatively on topic or otherwise direct. Though sometimes I also have difficulty understanding the relation of some of your comments to the topic. For example, there are no obvious bots at Saidit, nor would there be any reason for them at a place like this. I think Edward has enjoyed applying ChatGPT comments, as if he were a bot. Anyhow, climate change....

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

For example, there are no obvious bots at Saidit, nor would there be any reason for them at a place like this.

Are you serious? alexstein posts the same messages basically weekly and everything is in line with Russian propaganda techniques. It's the same with climate change (no sane person would ever deny the world is going to shit in the middle of a mass extinction event).

Look at the /s/ukraine before I ever posted there to see all the fake news.

Saidit is an excellent platform to deploy bots on, because either it was founded with Russian or Chinese money to begin with or it has been underfunded and as such it's easier to evade detection. The effort that goes into bot detection on platforms like Reddit is enormous.

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

we disagree

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

😂

[–]hfxB0oyA 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Quick, ban all of Iceland's cars!

[–]binaryblob 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (13 children)

This would be more credible, if you included verifiable math. The 0.04% (probably closer to 0.041%) was 0.029% not too long ago, which is a huge increase... If it's at 0.09% it becomes toxic to humans for prolonged exposure. In some badly ventilated class rooms it's 0.3% already.

You know that shitty small office in which you hold your meetings? That too is at 0.2% and it lowers brain performance.

[–][deleted]  (12 children)

[deleted]

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

    It's not a fallacy and it's not rocket science:

    Increasing greenhouse gases increases the greenhouse effect.

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

    A prime example on how to lie, using facts.

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

    What is a galaxy?

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

    In this case it's a swipo. Thanks, I'll correct it.

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

    Man has the means to alter the climate conditions. It's called airconditioning.

    If you meant on a global scale, then obviously the gigatons of oil results during a combustion process in CO2, which is created at a faster rate then the reverse reaction (forming of oil from dead plants and animals). Some of the CO2 is absorbed by the oceans, but the rest just becomes part of the air we are all breathing. Not sure, how you could have missed that unless of course you are just a bot, which is the most likely explanation for being as retarded as you are.

    [–][deleted]  (3 children)

    [deleted]

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

      It's certainly not cyclic on a long enough time scale, since nothing will live here anymore in 5 billion years.

      [–][deleted]  (1 child)

      [deleted]

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

        Man can do geo-engineering just fine. China and India regularly deploy what are essentially weather control devices.

        The only reason governments are not doing geo-engineering on a larger scale is fear that it might backfire. There are companies that are even doing geo-engineering outside of government oversight right now, essentially because they can and stopping them is impossible.

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

        If it was real the rich would stop using planes and yachts

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

        It's real, but they just like to piss on the rest of humanity.

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

        You're right

        [–][deleted] 1 insightful - 3 fun1 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

        Stick a carbon tax on that volcano, that'll fix climate change 😄

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

        Why are Saiditors supporting this misinformation from Big Oil? Really pathetic

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

        Because they are bots (most likely) or sitting in Africa (working for the Russian government).

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

        There are some South Asia spammers here, though I've not seen bots.