🚨🌎 4km Wide Volcanic Crack in Iceland is currently spewing out billions of tonnes of Co2. This is why man made Co2 emissions only = 3% Co2 as a trace gas makes up 0.04% of the Earths atmosphere.

submitted by Questionable from twitter.com

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

view the rest of the comments →

[–]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.

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

You copied his response.

Pathetic.

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

A small percentage was rephrased. Learn to count.

[–]ActuallyNot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (25 children)

Thanks!

And to be fair, the lack of really basic science understanding is what stands out amongst climate change deniers.

But the argument "all the scientists are making this up" is beyond crazy.

I wonder if they think that there's only a couple if dozen scientists involved, or if they think that all the world's academic and private research institutions are controlled by a dark cabal that looks at every paper by every scientist and every thesis by every student in every country and every language, and fires researchers and expels students if their paper or thesis looks likely to fail to support someone putting up a wind turbine.

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

I don't know anyone in the real world with such crazy views, other than e.g. Angela Merkel or anyone funded by Russia, like Gerhard Schröder (the guy went on to work for Gazprom (if I had been leader of Germany, I would have had him murdered by the secret service and drown in oil as in those James Bond movies)).

So, I think it's purely a foreign interest play, a wildly successful play at that, because Germany stopped with nuclear, which goes against all science. Yes, uranium will run out at some point, but you can store it a lot longer and it thus can provide some energy security, even if you have to import it (it just means that you need to be able to win a war in the time it takes for your uranium to run out (or be able to replace it with other sources of energy)).

Do you know anyone in the real world with such idiotic views? I must admit that I try not to communicate with people with an IQ below 130, so I don't relate to "average" people anymore.

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

I know some climate science deniers in the real world. Certainly it originates from people who are paid fossil fuel PR professionals, but their PR strategy is well researched and it works. They've tied the anti-science anti-environment position to a political position, and people are resistant to facts if they associate them with who they consider to be their in-group.

[–]Questionable[S] 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (22 children)

It's "man made climate change deniers". labeling others is a simple way to deny truth, and spread lies.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/character-attack/

There is no man made climate change, only Earth cycles.

Environmentalism does not involve any form of climate change.

Your beliefs are fallacious. And don't really address the accusations made of you for some reason?

Whatever. I can't expect much from a bot account and avid worshiper of Satan.

[–]ActuallyNot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (21 children)

It's "man made climate change deniers".

It depends.

Sometimes they claim that the observed CO2 increase is nothing to do with the CO2 released by the combustion of fossil fuels, which would be, as you say, denying that it's human caused.

Sometimes they claim they CO2 isn't a greenhouse gas. That would be climate change denial in general.

There is no man made climate change, only Earth cycles.

So do you deny that human activity can release CO2?

Or are you saying that CO2 didn't affect the climate?

Environmentalism does not involve any form of climate change.

What?

Are you saying that environmentalists aren't concerned about the observed range changes or local extinction of species and ecosystems?

Because that's obviously wrong.

Your beliefs are fallacious. And don't really address the accusations made of you for some reason?

Accusations of me? As in the character attacks your discuss?

I address any coherent arguments. Isn't that what we should strive for in building a community here on saidit?

In what way are my beliefs fallacious?

Whatever. I can't expect much from a bot account and avid worshiper of Satan.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/character-attack/

[–]Questionable[S] 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (20 children)

I deny that you are acting in good faith. As you are choosing a path of willful ignorance.

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

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt:

Global warming isn't rocket science.

Increasing greenhouse gases increases the greenhouse effect.

We understand how burning fossil fuels increases the temperature, and the increase in temperature has been measured.

People who tell you otherwise are taking money from the most lucrative and therefore powerful industry on earth.

But you don't have to fall for it. You can follow the science.

[–]Questionable[S] 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (18 children)

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt; Global warming isn't rocket science.

4km Wide Volcanic Crack in Iceland is currently spewing out billions of tonnes of Co2. This is why man made Co2 emissions only = 3% Co2 as a trace gas makes up 0.04% of the Earths atmosphere.

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

4km Wide Volcanic Crack in Iceland is currently spewing out billions of tonnes of Co2.

You got this from a tweet right?

You know that there's plenty of money in tweeting climate science misinformation, because the fossil fuel industry is huge. Oil and gas alone have revenues of 4.3 trillion last year, and misinformation is very cheap to produce.

So you should ask yourself "Is this true, or am I spreading lies?"

Did you ask yourself that?

Did you wonder why they said "billions of tonnes" but didn't say how many billions, or how that figure was estimated?

Did you know human activity released over 37 billion tonnes last year?

Here's some information about that exact claim about the Iceland volcano: spoiler alert, the tweet is false.

But you'd have to be ignorant of how CO2 is increasing to have a chance of falling for it. It doesn't increase when there's particular volcanic activity. It's been increasing with fossil fuel combustion.

Have you never looked at the Keeling Curve?

You should.

The big eruptions, most normally El Chichon in 1982, Pinatubo (and Hudson) in 1991, and Chaiten in 2008 don't even register.

This is why man made Co2 emissions only = 3% Co2 as a trace gas makes up 0.04% of the Earths atmosphere.

Again. Did you ask yourself "Is this true or am I spreading lies?"

... I hope not. Because of you did, you are speaking lies intentionally...

It's that what you're doing?

Human emissions are well over 100% of the increase in CO2. The oceans have been sinking it.

3% isn't even close.

Here's a graph showing human emissions and atmospheric concentration.

[–]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?

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

Not that I'm aware of.

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

I have submitted thread notifications off. Most likely takes higher priority canceling it out. That would be on me. Though I did receive a notification for this direct interaction.