When rational people tell the truth about CO2 the irrational brainwashed don’t know how to react. It almost short circuits them.

submitted by Questionable from twitter.com

all 24 comments
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

[–]YoMamma 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (24 children)

Beware of morons who are as wrong as this idiot grandpa about the problems of climate change. These assholes are contributing to the miserable situation young people find themselves in today.

https://science.nasa.gov/climate-change/causes/

Four Major Gases That Contribute to the Greenhouse Effect

Carbon Dioxide

A vital component of the atmosphere, carbon dioxide (CO2) is released through natural processes (like volcanic eruptions) and through human activities, such as burning fossil fuels and deforestation.

Methane

Like many atmospheric gases, methane comes from both natural and human-caused sources. Methane comes from plant-matter breakdown in wetlands and is also released from landfills and rice farming. Livestock animals emit methane from their digestion and manure. Leaks from fossil fuel production and transportation are another major source of methane, and natural gas is 70% to 90% methane.

Nitrous Oxide

A potent greenhouse gas produced by farming practices, nitrous oxide is released during commercial and organic fertilizer production and use. Nitrous oxide also comes from burning fossil fuels and burning vegetation and has increased by 18% in the last 100 years.

Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs)

These chemical compounds do not exist in nature – they are entirely of industrial origin. They were used as refrigerants, solvents (a substance that dissolves others), and spray can propellants.

(Sorry to argue with you again today, Questionable, but this guy is all hat and no cattle, and assholes like him are causing additional division and problems. Green energy is profitable and sustainable, whereas fossil fuel energy is not sustainable and causes numerous problems.)

[–]HugodeCrevellier 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (22 children)

You lazily posted statements from and a link to some NASA vulgarization aimed at kids:

'Four Major Gases Contribute to the Greenhouse Effect, Number one: Carbon Dioxide.'

Have you, with this, addressed his argument, in any way?

The statements that you imagine you're somehow challenging thus
is his claims that Carbon Dioxide only constitutes 0.04 % of the Earth's atmosphere,
and that (of that 0.04 %), 3% is anthropogenic, etc.

That's what needs addressing.

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

Have you, with this, addressed his argument, in any way?

Have you? I've appropriately argued - with evidence - that climate change is NOT only related to CO2. Read the rest of the information at the link I provided. If you have a counter argument, make it, and provide evidence.

[–]HugodeCrevellier 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (19 children)

I'm not the one pretending to challenge his arguments,
nor, certainly, spewing labels and insults,
including, ironically, about what a moron he is.

'The rest of the information' that you linked,
i.e. about gases other than CO2,
methane (CH4), at 0.01%, constitutes even (and much) less than CO2,
and as for Nitrous Oxide and/or CFCs, their percentages are even tinier, as in minuscule,
i.e parts per billion of the atmosphere.
The most abundant greenhouse gas in the atmosphere seems to be ... water vapour.

And the CO2 part of the NASA thing you quote and link says

'carbon dioxide (CO2) is released through natural processes (like volcanic eruptions) and through human activities'.

Fine, so, what Mr Jones claims is that
the anthropogenic (human activities) portion
of the (0.04%) CO2 part of the atmosphere
constitutes merely 3% of that 0.04%,
meaning that natural processes contribute 97% of it,
i.e. of the 0.04% part of the atmosphere that is CO2.

Now, many/most policies currently being proposed
aim at curbing anthropogenic carbon production,
at great costs to societies/taxpayers/people
and great profits to the corporations positioned to 'solve the problem',
all the while ignoring that 97% of CO2 production is not anthropogenic.

So, his concerns seem arguably valid, IF his numbers are correct.

Are they correct?

[–]YoMamma 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (18 children)

Now, many/most policies currently being proposed aim at curbing anthropogenic carbon production, at great costs to societies/taxpayers/people

Green energy investing, and associated subsidies, create jobs while offering sustainable energy and improving the environment and the future for younger people. Big Oil traditionally gets massive government subsidies, while destroying the environment with non-sustainable fossile fuels. Big corporations like this aren't creating new jobs. They're also destroying sea life when there's an oil leak. There are so many other problems anyone can look up. What Saiditors are supporting are these Big Corp, heavily funded, propaganda campaigns by the far right, while Saiditors complain that politicians are corrupt on the Hill. They can't have it both ways. Address Big Corp propaganda and corruption, or don't.

all the while ignoring that 97% of CO2 production is not anthropogenic.

The link I provide above - https://science.nasa.gov/climate-change/causes - offers this:

The industrial activities that our modern civilization depends upon have raised atmospheric carbon dioxide levels by nearly 50% since 17502. This increase is due to human activities, because scientists can see a distinctive isotopic fingerprint in the atmosphere.

In its Sixth Assessment Report, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, composed of scientific experts from countries all over the world, concluded that it is unequivocal that the increase of CO2, methane, and nitrous oxide in the atmosphere over the industrial era is the result of human activities and that human influence is the principal driver of many changes observed across the atmosphere, ocean, cryosphere and biosphere.

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

Sure, the oil industry must not get subsidized by taxpayers
(and they should furthermore pay for the disposal of plastics not to mention spills),
and leaks do harm sea life and more generally the environment, etc., etc., etc.,
but that's not was was being discussed, now, was it?

And the question was not 'ignore any and every point being made,
avoid understanding anything,
and mindlessly regurgitate some mantra'.

It was rather:

So, his concerns seem arguably valid, IF his numbers are correct.

Are they correct?

[–]YoMamma 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (12 children)

CO2 levels in the atmosphere have reached 421 parts per million, or 0.0421%, according to NASA. That's similar to the amount the person in the video claims is in the atmosphere.

However, the claim that humans are only responsible for 3% of that CO2 is wrong, according to Gavin Schmidt, a NASA climate scientist and director of the Goddard Institute of Space Studies.

In 1850, the atmospheric CO2 concentration was about 280 parts per million. The increase to the current level of 421 parts per million is all a result of human activity, Schmidt told USA TODAY in an email. source

So roughly a third, not 3%, of the CO2 currently in the atmosphere has been contributed by humans since 1850.

He lied.

Moreover, "Global temperatures and atmospheric CO2 levels are correlated" (contrary to what that disinformation in the video suggests):

Australia was responsible for about 1.4% of human emissions between 1850 and 2021, according to Carbon Brief. This is close to what is stated in the video. But, again, that's 1.4% of one-third of the amount of CO2 currently in the atmosphere, not 1.4% of 3% (or 1.3% of 3%) as claimed in the video.

Additionally, between 1990 and 2019, Australia's per capita CO2 emissions from industry, land use change and agriculture were among the highest in the world, outpacing the U.S., China and Russia, according to Climate Watch.

He lied about that too.

For climate change, total amount of CO2 is more important than proportion of CO2

The fossil fuel industry and that lying asshole want us to think that the proportion of CO2 is more important.

[–]Questionable[S] 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (3 children)

Man you are really freaking out about this. Really having a spaz attack. Kind of like your brain is short circuiting or something.

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

There's no evidence of "freaking out". I've merely offered corrections to your (and Big Oil's) false opinions. We can do that on Saidit. Instead of attacking the user, see if you can provide an appropriate argument and evidence.

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

Yes. I'm quite sure your rants are perfectly normal. In a wasting people time through texting competition. Provided you are not paid by the letter, and trying to exhaust the reader through Filibustering. Good grief!

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

It's possible that Jones is referring to an estimated yearly anthropogenic contribution to the 0.04% of atmospheric CO2.

What Schmidt did, for his 33% number, was to refer to an estimated cumulative anthropogenic CO2, since 1850!

It'd be interesting, for clarity, to know what all the (both natural and anthropogenic) sources of atmospheric CO2 are, by percentage per year.

[–]YoMamma 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

estimated cumulative anthropogenic CO2, since 1850!

Yes - as that's the evidence that correlates increased CO2 (and greenhouse gas emissions) with human activity

It'd be interesting, for clarity, to know what all the (both natural and anthropogenic) sources of atmospheric CO2 are, by percentage per year.

Yes - the EPA does this: https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/climate-change-indicators-global-greenhouse-gas-emissions

It's important to note that - when discussing greenhouse gasses and their impact - the total amount of CO2 is at issue, not the percentage of CO2.

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

That's not what ... all the (both natural and anthropogenic) sources of atmospheric CO2 by percentage per year, ... means.

[–]TotalAnon1337 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Pussy

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

Regarding what, moron? CO2? lol

[–]TotalAnon1337 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Regarding your genitals

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

Why are you so interested in my genitals? CO2 discussions inspire you to think of them?

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

They lie, cheat, and steal to promote it: https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/noel-sheppard/2008/04/22/gore-used-fictional-video-illustrate-inconvenient-truth

Fudge numbers too, cherry-pick them.

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

But being a Big Warmer is stylish.

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

Pouring oil and chemicals into the ocean is not good and will kill the fish.

Response: I don't like fish sticks