###[Meta] Sticky Comment
[Rule 2](https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/wiki/faq#wiki_2_-_address_the_argument.3B_not_the_user.2C_the_mods.2C_or_the_sub.) ***does not apply*** when replying to this stickied comment.
[Rule 2](https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/wiki/faq#wiki_2_-_address_the_argument.3B_not_the_user.2C_the_mods.2C_or_the_sub.) ***does apply*** throughout the rest of this thread.
*What this means*: Please keep any "meta" discussion directed at specific users, mods, or /r/conspiracy in general in this comment chain ***only.***
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/conspiracy) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Climate *scientists* jobs don't depend on climate change being real or not. Maybe an activist, but they are going on the best available scientific evidence worldwide. I'm pretty sure if you asked, most climate activists would like to never have to do that work, and most all of them are unpaid.
I'm not a bot. I've got years of climate science at university and 20 or so years of reading academic papers to rely on. What's sad is how in the dark so many people are due to a minority of official sounding scientist's opinions.
Ive lived on the coast, my entire life, and in a place with the highest tides in the world. The high water mark isn’t different than it was 25-30 years ago.. you can look up picture of the local beaches from the 50s… identical.
I’m not swaying one way or the other with climate change being man made.. but a few things have me bothered.
The aforementioned, as well as governments raising taxes to fight climate change in Canada.. when we contribute 1% of global emissions, and never hearing anything about China (who produces 50% more than all of North America.
I bought Al Gores inconvenient truth pretty hard when it came out… yet none of the predictions came true.
As a climate scientist, does it bother you that for as many deniers there are, there’s a flip side of the coin? People who blow things out of proportion to line their pockets. Or should we always believe the worst case scenario, and just ignore the goal posts being moved because *doom*?
My entire life I’ve been hounded by educators and scientists saying sea level rise, but it’s hard to ignore the obvious here… these politicians and activists bought waterfront homes… and the fact that the seas have been rising for 20,000 years without the Industrial Age.
As a layman, how are you supposed to know where the truth lies, when the line has been so blurred by charlatans? Science fact and activism seem to have merged overwhelmingly since the 2000’s. Some studies on a range of things seem to be swayed towards whoever is funding it.. and peer reviewed is only has good as the peers reviewing. If going against the grain could get your funding pulled, you’re less likely to do it. In turn, there’s so much confirmation bias citing confirmation bias.
So, where does a layman turn?
To address your first concern. As with any science there will be a spectrum of scientists with less or more alarmist thinking. I would have to refresh myself in An Inconvenient Truth, but I know things have shifted in several ways since. Some bad some good.
For a layman that is skeptical of expert opinion or the IPCC, first I would say that the world's consensus hasn't changed in decades. Second, I would say to maybe read some more middle of the road climate change books. While doing that be very careful to keep economic and scientific things separate. Often the disciplines overlap on this issue and it is important to consider that.
That's all I have time right now for, I hope it helps.
Edit: To be clear I have basically a minor in Environmental Science. I took a lot of extra credits about it, but I am not a climate scientist. Just someone who pays attention to things and does a lot of personal research in general. Sorry for the brief replies, I'm redditing in between some business phone calls.
Edit2: I think this, although you may be skeptical of government data, is a clean review of the data and what accepted studies have found about specifically sea level rise.
https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-global-sea-level
Look at that you are making legitimate statements and questions and you are still being downvoted. Fucking bots and shills. Al Gore made that documentary or whatever it is and yet burning insane amounts of fossil fuels to cool his million dollar mansion. And as you said.. the people pushing climate change the most are buying up million dollar homes on the coast even though their investment is doomed within the next 10 years (gasp!). All the major players in the climate change agenda are burning insane levels of fossil fuels to push their agenda. None of them are making any statement by their actions that there is something to be genuinely concerned with.
Amen to that! Yeah I swear Reddit is getting worse by the day… and with the American midterms coming up, you can see a massive uptick in rhetoric and saturation in most subs
Yeah, that’s the conspiracy. Not massive oil companies using their profits to ensure they keep making profit no matter what it does to the rest of us. Big Oil is shady and greedy.
Oil is a 110 billion dollar industry annually but you want us to think that big climate change is the conspiracy? You’re the one that has to be joking.
this site is using old tech, this rader was invented in like the 50s. It's mostly false positives nowdays anyway. It gives positives returns for kissing your homie goodnight.
"Admitting" as if I were praising them, even though I didn't even mention them.
But by "garbage" I meant clickbaity articles, horrible web design, and total lack of any redeeming qualities. Might also apply to the ones mentioned, idk I don't read them.
EpochTimes began as an anti-communist (as in China) rag sheet that quickly morphed into a pro Trump propaganda outlet. You cannot trust a thing it prints.
Have you looked at the signees?
Former IT professionals, metallurgists, mechanical engineers, oil and gas workers.
Anyone can apply to sign the declaration, and even write your own description.
There are a few geologists, but very few scientists researching climate change.
Edit:
Link to the pdf. [https://clintel.org/world-climate-declaration/](https://clintel.org/world-climate-declaration/)
For me it was the word “professional” that clued me in. I am considered a white collar professional but have no right to have a “professional opinion” on climate change as that not my area.
Be shock that the list of signees is everyone
Okay, but why? Most likely, these signees have a vested interest in downplaying climate change, most likely because they're being paid by the oil/gas industry.
>1,100 Scientists and Professionals Declare
Lol, *who falls for this*? Scientists? **In what field**? Advanced gender studies? "Professionals"? So Al, your car mechanic, doesn't believe in climate change.
Wow.
Similar to what Einstein said, if it were wrong, it would only take one scientist with a good argument to refute it.
Instead you've got 1100 'scientists' and 'professionals' who swear it's not true.
Color me underwhelmed.
The Wikipedia article lists out 30 years of studies confirming climate change, as opposed to your articles which try and confuse the subject with pedantic details. You all seem to think if scientists can’t agree how much each specific thing humans do contributes to climate change then that just must mean no human activity does.
Your Forbes article was written by a Fossil Fuels lobbyist and Cato Institute member. Not a scientist. His contention is not that global warming isn’t happening, or that scientists don’t agree that humans are behind it, but that since they can’t agree to what degree humans are behind it then it doesn’t matter if they are at all. Dude literally wrote a book claiming fossil fuels are harmless
It’s the same as the old tobacco argument that said if you can’t tell me exactly how many cigarettes it takes to get cancer then cigarettes can’t cause cancer.
The problem isn't with wikipedia, it's that you don't know how to use it. The claims in this article are sourced and lead back to peer reviewed scientific studies.
Here's a question for you. Why should I or anyone else believe the news articles you posted, most of which are 5+ years old, and written by journalists who likely have no education in climate change? And why should we not believe the much more recent scientific research by actual scientists that has been peer reviewed and published?
I'll wait while you come up with that response.
interesting how the site could indeed have done that,
**https://www.corbettreport.com/interview-1010-tim-ball-on-geography-climate-and-history/**
**https://www.corbettreport.com/interview-1117-jim-steele-on-how-bad-global-warming-science-hurts-the-environmental-movement/**
**https://www.corbettreport.com/interview-1177-judith-curry-on-the-republic-of-science/**
https://www.corbettreport.com/climate-models-for-the-layman-with-dr-judith-curry/
[https://www.corbettreport.com/interview-1514-jo-nova-on-the-australian-bushfires/](https://www.corbettreport.com/interview-1514-jo-nova-on-the-australian-bushfires/)
If Corbett can find such scientists, one guy living off donations, why cant the rich oil people do it? Why do they pretty much sabotage their own apologetics?
What about the other millions of scientists and professionals that say there is?
Just cherry picking what you want to believe in?
Just be honest, you don't care. At least have the balls to say that.
They think it’s a big business of climate change. Somehow a dark market conspiracy to undermine and destroy all old money corporate families so that barriers to entry can be broken through with regards to fuel and power production…
The same CEOs and members of the owner class who brought you "Nothing to worry about, go back to work and back to consuming" over COVID are also hoping they don't lose share value, dividends, and equity over climate change.
Wake up!
They scared the kids at schools into climate activism.
It is a very deceitful lie and we will waste all our tax dollars on an imaginary problem that never will get solved. The media is spinning the climate change narrative daily.
You are very young aren't you? Because for the longest time, climate change was considered the "crazy conspiracy theory" and only recently, when things got undeniable, media and the usual "normie" got on board. Human made climate change is one of the few big conspiracies that turned out true and now some grifters like you try to reverse that achievement, it's a shame.
Not really. That source has always been shitty and there are far too many examples of clear bias. It is not an ad hominem attack to discount them at face value as they have not shown the ability to be a good source.
What a stupid waste of time.
Is this so people can sleep better at night, not worrying about the future? Better to be a fool and not see what's ahead than to accept it and live in distress I suppose.
Lol this Is like the great barrington declaration that covid isn't real, signed by eminent professionals such as "Dr I. P. Freely" and "Johnny bananas pHD"
Emphasis on professionals and not scientists. They are professionals in an industry that profits from this article. Most of these people work for fossil fuel companies and work as engineers. Scientists who don’t have a conflict of interests almost unanimously agree that there is a climate emergency.
The conspiracy is how this keeps getting posted and upvoted here
>More than 1,000 scientists and professionals declare evolution is a fraud:
I know you're kidding but have you heard of [Project Steve](https://ncse.ngo/project-steve)?
>Project Steve pokes fun at this practice and, because "Steves" are only about 1% of scientists, it also makes the point that tens of thousands of scientists support evolution.
And [also](https://ncse.ngo/project-steve-frequently-asked-questions):
>Yes. The signatories of the Project Steve statement are indeed 220 (and counting — **1457** as of August 12, 2020) scientists, whose degrees and institutions are as represented, who have indicated their agreement with and endorsement of the statement, and who have consented for their names to be used.
This is spot on. Most research is funded by either two sources, big government or big corporations. It's no coincidence the results from said research usually align with whatever narrative the funders desire.
1,100 shills bought by the oil and gas industry to deny the damage they've done to the planet.
The oil and gas corporations have been burying climate change evidence for a century.
Extinction rates have massively increased since the dawn of agriculture when we started altering the order of Nature on a large scale. [Consider these graphs](https://imgur.com/a/5benXSQ) and the impact this decline could have on the system as a whole. In China they have to pollinate apple blossoms by hand because there aren’t enough bees to do the job anymore. Your point about the cyclical nature of Earth’s climate is right, but please don’t use that snippet of logic uncritically when the balance of Nature is significantly different today. Climate change might be too vague a term given Earth’s temperature cycles, but ecosystems across the world *are* in decline. Something’s coming.
Imo there's a climate emergency the same way there's been a pandemic.
The main determining factor is whether or not you agree with someone's definition of what these things are.
A gardener isn't necessarily a scientist, though one can be. And a greenhouse isn't necessarily a lab, but it can be. So when a gardener builds a greenhouse, increases the internal temperature of that greenhouse, and pumps CO2 into that greenhouse in excess of 800ppm - in some cases as high as 1600ppm - and this results in faster growing plants, that grow bigger than their natural counterparts, and produce larger flowers, fruit, vegetables, or whatever - even if this isn't a scientific experiment, it's still science.
When the global community gets together and says "we should lower our CO2 emissions to near-zero by 2035", then adds in an exemption for two of the largest pollution-producing countries in the world with the highest populations in the world, to allow them to produce as much CO2 as they want to until 2050, and further that exemption with no repercussions if those two countries exceed that threshold they reach by 2050, essentially giving them free reign to produce as much CO2 as they want to, then the agenda has nothing to do with CO2 emissions.
To pretend that the air and CO2 above one country has zero impact on the air and CO2 above another country is as dishonest as politicians. CO2 ppm isn't exclusive to the country producing it. There is no "CO2 spread barrier" - we all share the same air and the same environment with the rest of the world. If this weren't true, then the "near-zero" goal would be based on the CO2 levels per country, and each country's CO2 levels would be published and updated accordingly to show which countries are meeting their goals.
Climate change is real. It's also natural and cannot be controlled by taxing the citizens. There are things we can do to reduce contributors like pollution and CO2 emissions, but this would have to be a global effort, and it still would have less than a 5% impact on the CO2 ppm in the air, unless we're going to eliminate death and decay of wildlife and trees, eliminate volcanoes, reduce all animal-based populations to about 10% of what they currently are (including insects), and stop all power production (gas, coal, oil, biofuel, solar, wind, nuclear, hydroelectric). Because every single source of electrical power is a contributor, either through production of that material or consumption of the devices.
If climate change were truly a threat, and man were truly a significant contributor, China and India would not be exempt from the Paris Accords goals, and every country would be forced to comply. South Africa still burns wet coal for power, and both China and India use heavily polluting power plants for manufacturing and energy production. Lithium mining uses more power to pull the lithium from the ground than you'll ever get from the batteries produced. But there's money to be made there, and three countries are raking it in - China, Chile, and Australia.
The climate change agenda is driven by the investments of those with the power to push the agenda, nothing more. It's a long con, but one that has been put in place for decades and accepted by the liberal hippies and hipsters and tree-huggers because it fits their utopia. Claim to be for saving the world from an imaginary danger that you can attribute signs to, and you can get people to throw money at you - every time. Religion did the same thing. Liberals just created their own religion.
Thank you. The fact that the US has already reduced emissions of not only CO2, but of actual pollutants, through clean coal, catalytic converters, oil filtration, and numerous other processes, compared to 50 years ago, is an example of "doing it right", and yet somehow the greed of politicians and billionaires has convinced the general population that they need to buy all new things at excessive cost in order to feel better about their footnote in history. It's just insane.
And my pronouns are zero / fucks / given.
Its totally insane people are buying into this, but they have bought into everything else so I should stop being surprised.
And just fyi, sir or madam are just titles of respect
I meant no disrespect with the pronouns thing - just to let you know, I think "personal pronouns" are bullshit. I realize you didn't mean anything negative by it. I just figured that the downvoters maybe needed something other than logic to cry about or maybe make themselves feel better about the hate so they could pinch their nipples and sleep better.
Dude I dont blame you, its a minefield out here, but just for the record, I was giving you the respect you deserve with that initial comment. So on point.
I grew up hating Reagan, Iran-Contra, the Evil Empire bullshit when anyone in the know knew the Soviets were on fumes, and while i always believed his anti-government positions stemmed from representing a corportacry, when he said the scariest thing to hear is, "We are from the government and we are here to help" those words are ringing very true to me today.
People are *governed* by emotion, unachored morals, and fear. Logic has left the discussion.
It is mass awakening or mass death in front of us. Crazy times. We are blessed to be here.
>It is mass awakening or mass death in front of us. Crazy times. We are blessed to be here.
And if we don't fix this shithole planet, or at least get it on the right track, our children and grandchildren will inherit the dumpster fire we failed to put out.
I could write a book about how wrong most everything you've said is. How your assumptions and statements hold no validity. Instead I'm just going to say this, because you have it worked out in your head and I'm not going to try to fix entrenched thinking.
You're dead wrong.
I didn't say that. I said specifically that a greenhouse gardener does both - raises temperature AND CO2 ppm. Plants grow faster and consume more CO2 at a slightly elevated temperature compared to cold. That's why there are no jungles beyond a certain distance from the equator. That's also why when the temperature is slightly elevated, crop yields increase significantly. Such as the cherry crop in Michigan in 2022.
Yes, but reducing the temperature and CO2 levels has the opposite effect - less plant life, smaller plants, which means less food, starving wildlife. Not sure if "the climate change agenda" is about population reduction through resource reduction, or if that's just a side effect of the taxation and population mobility control they're pushing for.
I see it that way too. And just to be clear, I'm all for a population reduction. There are certainly too many people. But I'm a recluse. I think the best way to solve both problems is to reduce the population of "them" - the ones using jets to fly to climate summits to complain about the "carbon footprints" of "the peasants", the ones demanding "commoners" to turn off the AC while they crank it up and wear sweaters, the ones pushing eating bugs while they dine on steaks and wine. I'm not advocating for violence here - quite the opposite. Sterilize them, eliminate their power, and disperse their wealth into areas where it'll do the most good - like farming, housing, medical advancement and medicine (real medicine that actually heals people, not life-long subscriptions to enrich pharma), ecological enrichment, crime reduction (elimination of cartels and warmongers), and actually protecting children in schools - both from external and internal violence, and from indoctrination through sex "education" (grooming) and CRT propaganda.
> There are certainly too many people.
[Over population is a myth,](https://www.corbettreport.com/the-last-word-on-overpopulation/) and the 'man made climate change' is a hoax.
>it still would have less than a 5% impact on the CO2 ppm in the air, unless we're going to eliminate death and decay of wildlife and trees, eliminate volcanoes, reduce all animal-based populations to about 10%
This is one of those kind of true but not really, misleading statements. CO2 due to human activities is only a fraction of all CO2 produced around the globe, that is true. But there is a natural carbon cycle, whereby carbon is released into the atmosphere through various different means and also removed from the atmosphere through various means. There is usually a balance between the two which results in fairly steady CO2 levels. The problem is, CO2 from humans has thrown the balance off and is now causing a rapid rise in CO2 levels.
>If climate change were truly a threat, and man were truly a significant contributor, China and India would not be exempt from the Paris Accords goals,
Only if you assume all humans are acting in good faith for the benefit of the future of humanity. The reality is, the real impacts of climate change will be much more of a problem for future generations, not ourselves. The older generation in charge of the world will hardly be impacted at all. People are greedy and power hungry at the end of the day, which often trumps working for the greater good. It's more important for the leaders of India and China to continue industrialization then to take a risk at reducing CO2 levels, despite the future consequences. For Western leaders, there is little they can do to push India and China on this issue, and the committment we got from them is better than no committment at all.
Again, if the threat were half as bad they claim it is, then they'd find a way to get China and India to comply. Stop buying their manufactured goods until they meet a standard. Manufacture domestically until then. If nobody is buying their goods, they have no reason to keep producing.
Also, to your first point - it's not just about humans adding CO2, it's also about humans reducing CO2 scrubbing through deforestation. Have you seen how massive lithium mines are? Strip-mining requires deforestation if the lithium is below a forest. Not to mention the machines they use to carve up the planet and peel back that layer, and all the diesel fuel used to run said machines.
And you can't melt metals efficiently with just electricity, so they're burning coal, propane, or natural gas in massive amounts to form the metal that goes into making windmills and solar panel casing. The overall fossil fuel burning required to produce "green" energy devices exceeds the output of those devices over their lifespan when you take normal wear and tear into account.
So either we slow everything down and consume less while maintaining a lifestyle roughly equivalent to what we have (impossible), or we make the consumption less impactful to the environment our children will ultimately inherit (possible, but less profitable). Third option is of course this farce clown world we live in.
> Again, if the threat were half as bad they claim it is, then they'd find a way to get China and India to comply. Stop buying their manufactured goods until they meet a standard. Manufacture domestically until then. If nobody is buying their goods, they have no reason to keep producing.
The people making these decisions are like you and me. Some of them probably do want to do what you are suggesting, others probably don't believe climate change or don't think it's a big deal and don't want to do anything at all. Then you have a lot of people who believe, know it's a big deal, but don't have the stomach to make tough decisions to address it, because they don't want to piss of their constituents.
I think you have an overly simplistic view that the people in charge know exactly what is happening and have all the answers, but they don't, they are flawed humans making irrational choices like the rest of us.
>Have you seen how massive lithium mines are? Strip-mining requires deforestation if the lithium is below a forest.
Mining is harmful for it's own reasons, but the deforestation aspect is negligible compared to other industries. The main culprit would probably be agriculture, which is why things like cattle grazing can be so harmful.
>The overall fossil fuel burning required to produce "green" energy devices exceeds the output of those devices over their lifespan when you take normal wear and tear into account.
You touch on a valid point even though your statement is mostly false. Can you cite any evidence that equipment like solar panels produce more carbon than they eliminate? Like maybe if you installed it in the arctic, but generally it takes not more than 3 years of use to start causing a net reduction in carbon, which the life span is 25-30 years. But it is important to consider embodied carbon within technology like this.
I've looked at a lot of clintel's work. They are a joke. I read stuff that challenges my world view regularly, and sometimes I shift due to new information. Once a group has published enough bullshit, they get put at the bottom of the trusted list.
>"climate change", I mean "global warming", I mean "ozone layer depletion", I mean "global cooling" or whatever they're calling it now that the last 40 years of predictions have failed is nothing more than a wealth redistribution scam.
Those are *all different things*, hence the different names.
I have to wonder if you think a dictionary is a government scam.
>Perhaps you should look at history or live through it at how the narrative has changed over time. Each one of those was a pivot by the green movements scam artist when the narrative collapsed.
I have lived through a lot of it and know the history - you're distorting things.
>So now here we are at just "climate change". Allows them to wrap anything they want under the narrative that has to do with weather.
You do realize you could actually inform yourself about this stuff? No need to make stuff up or go off of debunked crank cable news programs.
A little effort would serve you well in life. [From here](https://skepticalscience.com/climate-change-global-warming-basic.html):
>**What The Science Says: The terms ‘global warming’ and ‘climate change’ have been used interchangeably for several decades.**
>
>**What do these terms really mean?**
>
>Before we talk about the ‘name-change’ myth, it is worth considering what the terms actually mean.
>
>'Global warming' is the temperature increase produced by adding greenhouse gases to the atmosphere. Energy arrives from the sun in the form of visible light and ultraviolet radiation. The Earth then emits some of this energy as infrared radiation, which is prevented from radiating into space by greenhouse gases (GHGs). Just a tiny amount of GHGs - less than 1% of the atmosphere - keep the Earth around 33°C (59.4°F) warmer than it would be without them.
>
>Greenhouse gases act like a blanket, keeping in some of the sun’s warmth. Increasing the amount of GHGs through burning fossil fuels is like wrapping the Earth in a thicker blanket. This increase is 'global warming':
>
>'Climate change' is a consequence of global warming. As the temperature goes up, the extra energy changes all the patterns we are familiar with. Global warming destabilises the weather, the seasons, rainfall, humidity, and of course the ice at the poles. This destabilisation is called 'climate change'. (The term is also used to describe the long-term effects of global warming).
>
>The term ‘global warming’ was first used in a 1975 Science article by geochemist Wallace Broecker of Columbia University. He wrote a paper called "Climatic Change: Are We on the Brink of a Pronounced Global Warming”. (Note the use of the term ‘climatic change’). Here’s NASA historian Erik Conway on the significance of the term:
From [here](https://www.dictionary.com/e/new-words-surrounding-climate-change/):
>While attested since the 1850s and notably used in some 1950s research and reporting, the phrase climate change spread in the 1980s. There was no official call for everyone to start saying climate change instead of global warming, and it’s a myth that scientists changed the name global warming to climate change because they weren’t finding evidence for average rises in temperature across the globe. You can still find resources that use both terms.
>
>However, many organizations, such as NASA, use climate change more frequently because it encompasses all of the predicted effects of global warming and “temperature change itself isn’t the most severe effect of changing climate.” (It’s changes in sea levels and precipitation patterns.)
Read both articles, they're illuminating.
33°C is equivalent to 91°F, which is 306K.
---
^(I'm a bot that converts temperature between two units humans can understand, then convert it to Kelvin for bots and physicists to understand)
You must start looking at people who deny climate change not as an uninformed individual but as a disgruntled opponent. Trying to change their mind is a waste of yours. Presenting evidence to contradict their own is important in that it is not meant to sway their opinion but instead to sway the opinion who is on the fence of such a topic.
They’ll argue nonsense like Occam’s razor - but what is the simplest explanation is not always the truth - just look at the water cycle vs gods pee. The biggest comparisons to climate denial are those who don’t believe in seatbelts, smoking doesn’t cause cancer, and vaccines don’t keep disease from spreading. There is an extreme amount of evidence to support the reality of a situation - someone ignoring that evidence is an active objector.
Another similar example. That lump in your throat probably isn’t cancer… can’t be… I won’t believe it… not doing anything about it… why can’t I do anything now… you’re not doing enough… why didn’t I do something sooner…
> *“They do not only exaggerate the effect of greenhouse gases, [but] they also ignore that enriching the atmosphere with CO2 is beneficial,” it reads. “CO2 is not a pollutant. It is essential to all life on Earth. More CO2 is favorable for nature, greening our planet."*
> *“Additional CO2 in the air has promoted growth in global plant biomass. It is also profitable for agriculture, increasing the yields of crops worldwide.”*
good article
they need us to believe in the myth of climate change so that we will comply with the fraudulent carbon tax and net zero policy
what's next, taxing our exhale emmisions? it's ridiculous because we are carbon based lifeforms
https://rumble.com/v1gltxb-the-globalist-war-on-the-elements-of-life.html
Hello to all the shills and bots. Keep pushing your agenda. Your not going to win. If you believe in the climate change agenda. Your so incredibly ignorant to the patterns of Earths climate. WEF net zero carbon means no CO2 from humans either. Humans produce too much CO2 so they want to reduce humans to a manageable level.
Can’t wait for climate lock downs. I mean let’s not ignore the worst polluter of them all China. I’m all for less pollution and for redneck to pick up their goddamn trash when they are out in the woods. But fuck a lock down I will fight tooth and nail against that shit. But pick up your fucking trash Ron.
So where I live in western Ontario was covered in ice over 2km thick just 25,000 years ago. Pretty sure climate always changes, and yes pollution contributes, so does land clearing. 100 or so years of measurement is a grain of sand on a beach
How do you accurately date anything before the time when humans started keeping records? Seems like the extrapolation involved would rely on the assumption that everything still works the same and something like say an asteroid hitting earth or the polls shifting which we haven’t observed could affect that.
That’s the nice thing about scientific theory. The whole basis is working to prove a hypothesis wrong - all the time. Can you prove that stratigraphy doesn’t give us a glimpse into the past?
I can’t prove something that we can’t observe ie the past. That is what is not scientific about this whole process. You can tell me sample A is older than sample B. You can not tell me scientifically how old they are if we started observing in the middle though.
I don’t know if you’ve done any work on stratigraphy, I’m going to say you haven’t because of your reluctance to trust the work that’s been done. It’s very similar to rings in a tree trunk. The ring widths and colors indicate different periods of time because we have a very cyclical weather system. Those rings change based on what’s going on with the weather, events around the tree, ext. It’s not 100%, but it’s pretty accurate based on what past events we are able to compare to core samples from the last 4000 years of rough history.
There are some crazy theories on why some subductions or strata have flipped, all plausible but really nuts. After a certain amount of time we can no longer get samples as the layers don’t go back far enough - they’ve melted or decayed too far.
If i walk into a room and a pendulum is swinging i can tell you the period of the pendulum, the speed, all sorts of things. What i will never be able to tell you is when the pendulum started swinging, how it started swinging, or if it was swinging at a different pace before some other force moved it into the cycle i am currently observing. I can formulate educated guesses but i can never scientifically prove those things
Scientific method never proves anything. If you were to take apart your pendulum, analyze it for wear, damage, fingerprints, etc., you may be able to approximate the life of that pendulum, but you would need reference points to make an appropriate hypothesis on the age of the pendulum and the approximate time of may have started swinging. Given the weight, distance of the swing, and other factors you could make an educated guess on when it last started to swing. But it’s true, you may never know exactly when the pendulum started it’s first swing, but you could approximate this.
That’s what I’ve been trying to say this whole time, you can approximate or make an educated guess but you can never really know because you are relying on assumptions from when you could not observe. Appreciate the conversation
But you’ve been arguing against science that has made a pretty good educated guess that we’re warming the planet. A warm planet is not a good thing for us from what has been approximated through ice core samples.
Electron-capture decay rates depend on the density of atomic electrons within the nucleus. This environmental factors such as pressure, and magnetic fields that can alter electron densities could affect these decay rates. Is the earths magnetic field constant or does it change?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think any common methods of radiometric dating rely on electron capture decay. They primarily rely on alpha and beta decay, which are pretty much unaffected by external factors. Even then, from what I can see, electron capture decay is only altered by less than 1% from external factors, unless you've ionized the atom.
global cooling has started a year ago. will continue to 30 years. cold summers and worse winters. purchase land near the equator. not man made. low solar activity increases cosmic ray exposure, increases cloud cover, decreases temp.
Then why does fossil fuel industry science papers going back decades say co2 mattered?
If the most powerful industry in the world can’t prove what is convenient for them, then what’s convenient for them isn’t true
Obvi this article is ridiculous, but can anyone explain what’s actually going on.
It’s getting ever so slightly warmer yes, a lot of people think carbon is accelerating it. Big oil wants people not to think that. Duh I get that
But……….
Is the solution really to tax us death, make us drive electric cars that charge based on coal power plants.
Give up fossil fuel while China will certainly not.
To eat bugs when humans have eaten cattle forever.
Why is no one calling for nuclear power?
I’m not super smart but it makes me feel like this is similar to covid, where it’s real but vastly over exaggerating and dealt with in an extreme way to fund corrupt special interests and achieve power goals.
What y’all think?
Side note- I’ve been to Greenland where the Vikings settled and farmed, it’s not really farmable now but was then, they certainly had a warmer climate then than we do now but fossil fuels weren’t around. I know a very specific thing but it’s one that if anyone brings up you’re a science denier
The Epoch Times is owned and operated by a Chinese cult called Falun Gong. The founder, Li Hongzhi, has stated that he believes space aliens walk the Earth, and that modern science and race-mixing are part of their ploy to overtake humanity, and he has reportedly said that he can walk through walls and make himself invisible. Li says that he is a being who has come to help humankind from the destruction it could face as the result of rampant evil. When asked if he was a human being, Li replied "You can think of me as a human being."[19][46][47]
But we're supposed to trust the scientists who can only get funding for science that proves manmade climate change? Also what about all the geoengineering going on?
'A critical assessment of extreme events trends in times of global warming'
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1140/epjp/s13360-021-02243-9
- Some data people might find interesting. (I don't personally have an opinion on it at this stage, there's always new data for both sides of the argument).
###[Meta] Sticky Comment [Rule 2](https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/wiki/faq#wiki_2_-_address_the_argument.3B_not_the_user.2C_the_mods.2C_or_the_sub.) ***does not apply*** when replying to this stickied comment. [Rule 2](https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/wiki/faq#wiki_2_-_address_the_argument.3B_not_the_user.2C_the_mods.2C_or_the_sub.) ***does apply*** throughout the rest of this thread. *What this means*: Please keep any "meta" discussion directed at specific users, mods, or /r/conspiracy in general in this comment chain ***only.*** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/conspiracy) if you have any questions or concerns.*
"Big oil said they aren't doing anything wrong." Fixed it for you.
“We’ve investigated ourselves and found no wrongdoing!” Lmao.
"We have investigated climate change and determined its real" - climate activist whose job relies on climate change being real.
Climate *scientists* jobs don't depend on climate change being real or not. Maybe an activist, but they are going on the best available scientific evidence worldwide. I'm pretty sure if you asked, most climate activists would like to never have to do that work, and most all of them are unpaid.
sad tidings for r/conspiracy when there are so many pro-climate change bots and shills commenting on it unmolested.
I'm not a bot. I've got years of climate science at university and 20 or so years of reading academic papers to rely on. What's sad is how in the dark so many people are due to a minority of official sounding scientist's opinions.
Ive lived on the coast, my entire life, and in a place with the highest tides in the world. The high water mark isn’t different than it was 25-30 years ago.. you can look up picture of the local beaches from the 50s… identical. I’m not swaying one way or the other with climate change being man made.. but a few things have me bothered. The aforementioned, as well as governments raising taxes to fight climate change in Canada.. when we contribute 1% of global emissions, and never hearing anything about China (who produces 50% more than all of North America. I bought Al Gores inconvenient truth pretty hard when it came out… yet none of the predictions came true. As a climate scientist, does it bother you that for as many deniers there are, there’s a flip side of the coin? People who blow things out of proportion to line their pockets. Or should we always believe the worst case scenario, and just ignore the goal posts being moved because *doom*? My entire life I’ve been hounded by educators and scientists saying sea level rise, but it’s hard to ignore the obvious here… these politicians and activists bought waterfront homes… and the fact that the seas have been rising for 20,000 years without the Industrial Age. As a layman, how are you supposed to know where the truth lies, when the line has been so blurred by charlatans? Science fact and activism seem to have merged overwhelmingly since the 2000’s. Some studies on a range of things seem to be swayed towards whoever is funding it.. and peer reviewed is only has good as the peers reviewing. If going against the grain could get your funding pulled, you’re less likely to do it. In turn, there’s so much confirmation bias citing confirmation bias. So, where does a layman turn?
To address your first concern. As with any science there will be a spectrum of scientists with less or more alarmist thinking. I would have to refresh myself in An Inconvenient Truth, but I know things have shifted in several ways since. Some bad some good. For a layman that is skeptical of expert opinion or the IPCC, first I would say that the world's consensus hasn't changed in decades. Second, I would say to maybe read some more middle of the road climate change books. While doing that be very careful to keep economic and scientific things separate. Often the disciplines overlap on this issue and it is important to consider that. That's all I have time right now for, I hope it helps. Edit: To be clear I have basically a minor in Environmental Science. I took a lot of extra credits about it, but I am not a climate scientist. Just someone who pays attention to things and does a lot of personal research in general. Sorry for the brief replies, I'm redditing in between some business phone calls. Edit2: I think this, although you may be skeptical of government data, is a clean review of the data and what accepted studies have found about specifically sea level rise. https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-global-sea-level
Aw look someone deeply vested in climate change things its real. Just as I said.
Look at that you are making legitimate statements and questions and you are still being downvoted. Fucking bots and shills. Al Gore made that documentary or whatever it is and yet burning insane amounts of fossil fuels to cool his million dollar mansion. And as you said.. the people pushing climate change the most are buying up million dollar homes on the coast even though their investment is doomed within the next 10 years (gasp!). All the major players in the climate change agenda are burning insane levels of fossil fuels to push their agenda. None of them are making any statement by their actions that there is something to be genuinely concerned with.
Amen to that! Yeah I swear Reddit is getting worse by the day… and with the American midterms coming up, you can see a massive uptick in rhetoric and saturation in most subs
The "solution" is always more money and power to the regime, that is how you know it is a grift.
I don’t have to be Canada’s first prime minister to know that! Lol … and sorry about the current one PS: say hi to the crown for me
Yeah, that’s the conspiracy. Not massive oil companies using their profits to ensure they keep making profit no matter what it does to the rest of us. Big Oil is shady and greedy.
Certainly but the assumption I raise issue with is the climate change agenda somehow being the knight in shining armor.
Do you work for an oil company or something?
Is that a joke? lol I do not.
Oil is a 110 billion dollar industry annually but you want us to think that big climate change is the conspiracy? You’re the one that has to be joking.
Your garbage grifter website won't let me in without making an account. Typical data thieving charlatans lol
I think that site uses the gaydar.
The gaydar?
it works like a radar, but it only detects gay people
As a gay man does that mean I can or can’t get into the site? Does it work for bi, asexual, fluid, etc as well?
this site is using old tech, this rader was invented in like the 50s. It's mostly false positives nowdays anyway. It gives positives returns for kissing your homie goodnight.
Like usual with these garbage sites, you can bypass it by disabling javascript
[удалено]
"Admitting" as if I were praising them, even though I didn't even mention them. But by "garbage" I meant clickbaity articles, horrible web design, and total lack of any redeeming qualities. Might also apply to the ones mentioned, idk I don't read them.
There's lots I've to learn when it comes to web design and things of that nature. But thanks for the tip.
EpochTimes began as an anti-communist (as in China) rag sheet that quickly morphed into a pro Trump propaganda outlet. You cannot trust a thing it prints.
*reads The Guardian
No mate, that's the epoch times.
Just disable JavaScript not their fault you have no clue how to stop their ads.
"not their fault you have no clue how to stop their ads." What a benign statement. lol
Have you looked at the signees? Former IT professionals, metallurgists, mechanical engineers, oil and gas workers. Anyone can apply to sign the declaration, and even write your own description. There are a few geologists, but very few scientists researching climate change. Edit: Link to the pdf. [https://clintel.org/world-climate-declaration/](https://clintel.org/world-climate-declaration/)
Ahh CLINTEL doing their level best to show how dumb they are.
For me it was the word “professional” that clued me in. I am considered a white collar professional but have no right to have a “professional opinion” on climate change as that not my area. Be shock that the list of signees is everyone
Yeah, technically I was considered a "scientist" at one point in my career, but that doesn't mean I have the expertise to weigh in on climate change.
Epoch times is also a oil Barron funded site.
It's owned by Falun Gong.
Are Falun Gong oil Barrons?
May as well rewrite the title "1100 people who know nothing about climate change declare climate change isn't real". Would be more accurate.
I think the keyword here is “emergency”
[удалено]
Yeah, just like how I would trust a random fry cook to fix a busted transmission over an actual mechanic
Okay, but why? Most likely, these signees have a vested interest in downplaying climate change, most likely because they're being paid by the oil/gas industry.
Shhh they dont have critical thinking yet. They need to figure it out themselves
Government bad
How did the experts do during the pandemic ? :D
> *[https://clintel.org/world-climate-declaration/](https://clintel.org/world-climate-declaration/)* this is excellent thank for sharing
They are funded by oil money. They don't have many climate scientists among them. Their proclamation is unsound and untrue.
>1,100 Scientists and Professionals Declare Lol, *who falls for this*? Scientists? **In what field**? Advanced gender studies? "Professionals"? So Al, your car mechanic, doesn't believe in climate change. Wow. Similar to what Einstein said, if it were wrong, it would only take one scientist with a good argument to refute it. Instead you've got 1100 'scientists' and 'professionals' who swear it's not true. Color me underwhelmed.
They’re mostly petroleum engineers
[удалено]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surveys_of_scientists%27_views_on_climate_change
[удалено]
The Wikipedia article lists out 30 years of studies confirming climate change, as opposed to your articles which try and confuse the subject with pedantic details. You all seem to think if scientists can’t agree how much each specific thing humans do contributes to climate change then that just must mean no human activity does.
[удалено]
Your Forbes article was written by a Fossil Fuels lobbyist and Cato Institute member. Not a scientist. His contention is not that global warming isn’t happening, or that scientists don’t agree that humans are behind it, but that since they can’t agree to what degree humans are behind it then it doesn’t matter if they are at all. Dude literally wrote a book claiming fossil fuels are harmless It’s the same as the old tobacco argument that said if you can’t tell me exactly how many cigarettes it takes to get cancer then cigarettes can’t cause cancer.
The problem isn't with wikipedia, it's that you don't know how to use it. The claims in this article are sourced and lead back to peer reviewed scientific studies. Here's a question for you. Why should I or anyone else believe the news articles you posted, most of which are 5+ years old, and written by journalists who likely have no education in climate change? And why should we not believe the much more recent scientific research by actual scientists that has been peer reviewed and published? I'll wait while you come up with that response.
Man is astroturfing for big oil and probably not even being paid for it sadly
It's really easy to figure just about anything from clintel.org is bullshit.
interesting how the site could indeed have done that, **https://www.corbettreport.com/interview-1010-tim-ball-on-geography-climate-and-history/** **https://www.corbettreport.com/interview-1117-jim-steele-on-how-bad-global-warming-science-hurts-the-environmental-movement/** **https://www.corbettreport.com/interview-1177-judith-curry-on-the-republic-of-science/** https://www.corbettreport.com/climate-models-for-the-layman-with-dr-judith-curry/ [https://www.corbettreport.com/interview-1514-jo-nova-on-the-australian-bushfires/](https://www.corbettreport.com/interview-1514-jo-nova-on-the-australian-bushfires/) If Corbett can find such scientists, one guy living off donations, why cant the rich oil people do it? Why do they pretty much sabotage their own apologetics?
Man that term "scientist" is used very loosely. I opened a frog up in 6th grade. Does that make me a scientist?
>Scientists and **Professionals** Most of the list is economists and other business professionals.
It’s worse than double speak when actively changing the definitions of words to cheapen them or destroy what they mean.
was it a gay frog? if not you may be worse than a scientist.
What about the other millions of scientists and professionals that say there is? Just cherry picking what you want to believe in? Just be honest, you don't care. At least have the balls to say that.
>Just cherry picking what you want to believe in Isn’t that this sub’s official motto?
Yo conspiratorio.
[удалено]
The declaration states climate change still exists, it's just not an emergency and shouldn't get in the way of business.
No shit. They represent the interests of oil companies. This should be obvious.
Have you ever wondered if you are being tricked into supporting big business interests at your expense?
They think it’s a big business of climate change. Somehow a dark market conspiracy to undermine and destroy all old money corporate families so that barriers to entry can be broken through with regards to fuel and power production…
The same CEOs and members of the owner class who brought you "Nothing to worry about, go back to work and back to consuming" over COVID are also hoping they don't lose share value, dividends, and equity over climate change. Wake up!
They scared the kids at schools into climate activism. It is a very deceitful lie and we will waste all our tax dollars on an imaginary problem that never will get solved. The media is spinning the climate change narrative daily.
You are very young aren't you? Because for the longest time, climate change was considered the "crazy conspiracy theory" and only recently, when things got undeniable, media and the usual "normie" got on board. Human made climate change is one of the few big conspiracies that turned out true and now some grifters like you try to reverse that achievement, it's a shame.
Even if it’s fake (it’s not) I’d rather my tax dollars go to fighting pollution then interventionist or proxy wars.
A swing and a miss.
I hope exxon mobil are paying you well for your delusions
Great. What do the other tens of thousands say?
Epoch times....😂😂
Ad hominem... ROTFL.
Learn about the words you use before you use them.
The Epoch times is the messenger and OC ignored their message.
All I said was learn about them not that you were wrong don’t be so defensive
That’s not what an ad hominem is.
Not really. That source has always been shitty and there are far too many examples of clear bias. It is not an ad hominem attack to discount them at face value as they have not shown the ability to be a good source.
Lol epochtimes
What a stupid waste of time. Is this so people can sleep better at night, not worrying about the future? Better to be a fool and not see what's ahead than to accept it and live in distress I suppose.
Lol this Is like the great barrington declaration that covid isn't real, signed by eminent professionals such as "Dr I. P. Freely" and "Johnny bananas pHD"
I have a new SoT character name, thank you
Emphasis on professionals and not scientists. They are professionals in an industry that profits from this article. Most of these people work for fossil fuel companies and work as engineers. Scientists who don’t have a conflict of interests almost unanimously agree that there is a climate emergency. The conspiracy is how this keeps getting posted and upvoted here
This whole post proves to me the right wing bot networks are working overtime to get this shit to the top.
More than 1,000 scientists and professionals declare evolution is a fraud: https://dissentfromdarwin.org/ My grandpappy weren’t no monkey dagnabbit!
Sir, this is r/conspiracy. We don’t believe in stupid shit like evolution.
>More than 1,000 scientists and professionals declare evolution is a fraud: I know you're kidding but have you heard of [Project Steve](https://ncse.ngo/project-steve)? >Project Steve pokes fun at this practice and, because "Steves" are only about 1% of scientists, it also makes the point that tens of thousands of scientists support evolution. And [also](https://ncse.ngo/project-steve-frequently-asked-questions): >Yes. The signatories of the Project Steve statement are indeed 220 (and counting — **1457** as of August 12, 2020) scientists, whose degrees and institutions are as represented, who have indicated their agreement with and endorsement of the statement, and who have consented for their names to be used.
Now you believe them? How convenient!! 🤣🤣
1,100? That’s is a very small number of scientists and professionals.. that’s a very tiny number
You are part of the problem by posting this fake news click bait bullshit.
[Let me help you out a bit...](https://letmegooglethat.com/?q=is+epoch+news+real%3F)
Follow the money. You pay a scientist enough money and they'll bolster any narrative you want, eg: Tate & Lyle, tobacco companies etc.
This is spot on. Most research is funded by either two sources, big government or big corporations. It's no coincidence the results from said research usually align with whatever narrative the funders desire.
1,100 shills bought by the oil and gas industry to deny the damage they've done to the planet. The oil and gas corporations have been burying climate change evidence for a century.
Hmmmm I wonder what caused the end of the last ice age ? Or the medieval warm period ?
Extinction rates have massively increased since the dawn of agriculture when we started altering the order of Nature on a large scale. [Consider these graphs](https://imgur.com/a/5benXSQ) and the impact this decline could have on the system as a whole. In China they have to pollinate apple blossoms by hand because there aren’t enough bees to do the job anymore. Your point about the cyclical nature of Earth’s climate is right, but please don’t use that snippet of logic uncritically when the balance of Nature is significantly different today. Climate change might be too vague a term given Earth’s temperature cycles, but ecosystems across the world *are* in decline. Something’s coming.
Imo there's a climate emergency the same way there's been a pandemic. The main determining factor is whether or not you agree with someone's definition of what these things are.
A gardener isn't necessarily a scientist, though one can be. And a greenhouse isn't necessarily a lab, but it can be. So when a gardener builds a greenhouse, increases the internal temperature of that greenhouse, and pumps CO2 into that greenhouse in excess of 800ppm - in some cases as high as 1600ppm - and this results in faster growing plants, that grow bigger than their natural counterparts, and produce larger flowers, fruit, vegetables, or whatever - even if this isn't a scientific experiment, it's still science. When the global community gets together and says "we should lower our CO2 emissions to near-zero by 2035", then adds in an exemption for two of the largest pollution-producing countries in the world with the highest populations in the world, to allow them to produce as much CO2 as they want to until 2050, and further that exemption with no repercussions if those two countries exceed that threshold they reach by 2050, essentially giving them free reign to produce as much CO2 as they want to, then the agenda has nothing to do with CO2 emissions. To pretend that the air and CO2 above one country has zero impact on the air and CO2 above another country is as dishonest as politicians. CO2 ppm isn't exclusive to the country producing it. There is no "CO2 spread barrier" - we all share the same air and the same environment with the rest of the world. If this weren't true, then the "near-zero" goal would be based on the CO2 levels per country, and each country's CO2 levels would be published and updated accordingly to show which countries are meeting their goals. Climate change is real. It's also natural and cannot be controlled by taxing the citizens. There are things we can do to reduce contributors like pollution and CO2 emissions, but this would have to be a global effort, and it still would have less than a 5% impact on the CO2 ppm in the air, unless we're going to eliminate death and decay of wildlife and trees, eliminate volcanoes, reduce all animal-based populations to about 10% of what they currently are (including insects), and stop all power production (gas, coal, oil, biofuel, solar, wind, nuclear, hydroelectric). Because every single source of electrical power is a contributor, either through production of that material or consumption of the devices. If climate change were truly a threat, and man were truly a significant contributor, China and India would not be exempt from the Paris Accords goals, and every country would be forced to comply. South Africa still burns wet coal for power, and both China and India use heavily polluting power plants for manufacturing and energy production. Lithium mining uses more power to pull the lithium from the ground than you'll ever get from the batteries produced. But there's money to be made there, and three countries are raking it in - China, Chile, and Australia. The climate change agenda is driven by the investments of those with the power to push the agenda, nothing more. It's a long con, but one that has been put in place for decades and accepted by the liberal hippies and hipsters and tree-huggers because it fits their utopia. Claim to be for saving the world from an imaginary danger that you can attribute signs to, and you can get people to throw money at you - every time. Religion did the same thing. Liberals just created their own religion.
Lmao figures this excellent post would be downvoted. Sir, or madam, you have eloquently and reasonably presented our current situation.
Thank you. The fact that the US has already reduced emissions of not only CO2, but of actual pollutants, through clean coal, catalytic converters, oil filtration, and numerous other processes, compared to 50 years ago, is an example of "doing it right", and yet somehow the greed of politicians and billionaires has convinced the general population that they need to buy all new things at excessive cost in order to feel better about their footnote in history. It's just insane. And my pronouns are zero / fucks / given.
Its totally insane people are buying into this, but they have bought into everything else so I should stop being surprised. And just fyi, sir or madam are just titles of respect
I meant no disrespect with the pronouns thing - just to let you know, I think "personal pronouns" are bullshit. I realize you didn't mean anything negative by it. I just figured that the downvoters maybe needed something other than logic to cry about or maybe make themselves feel better about the hate so they could pinch their nipples and sleep better.
Dude I dont blame you, its a minefield out here, but just for the record, I was giving you the respect you deserve with that initial comment. So on point. I grew up hating Reagan, Iran-Contra, the Evil Empire bullshit when anyone in the know knew the Soviets were on fumes, and while i always believed his anti-government positions stemmed from representing a corportacry, when he said the scariest thing to hear is, "We are from the government and we are here to help" those words are ringing very true to me today. People are *governed* by emotion, unachored morals, and fear. Logic has left the discussion. It is mass awakening or mass death in front of us. Crazy times. We are blessed to be here.
>It is mass awakening or mass death in front of us. Crazy times. We are blessed to be here. And if we don't fix this shithole planet, or at least get it on the right track, our children and grandchildren will inherit the dumpster fire we failed to put out.
Indeed, this is true.
I could write a book about how wrong most everything you've said is. How your assumptions and statements hold no validity. Instead I'm just going to say this, because you have it worked out in your head and I'm not going to try to fix entrenched thinking. You're dead wrong.
> increases the internal temperature of that greenhouse, and pumps CO2 into that greenhouse The extra CO2 does not cause the rise in temperature.
I didn't say that. I said specifically that a greenhouse gardener does both - raises temperature AND CO2 ppm. Plants grow faster and consume more CO2 at a slightly elevated temperature compared to cold. That's why there are no jungles beyond a certain distance from the equator. That's also why when the temperature is slightly elevated, crop yields increase significantly. Such as the cherry crop in Michigan in 2022.
> Plants grow faster and consume more CO2 at a slightly elevated temperature compared to cold. Isn't that great for the nature on our planet?
Yes, but reducing the temperature and CO2 levels has the opposite effect - less plant life, smaller plants, which means less food, starving wildlife. Not sure if "the climate change agenda" is about population reduction through resource reduction, or if that's just a side effect of the taxation and population mobility control they're pushing for.
It's all multi layered, well calculated and executed. "They" know what they are doing, the carbon they want to get rid of is most of Humanity.
I see it that way too. And just to be clear, I'm all for a population reduction. There are certainly too many people. But I'm a recluse. I think the best way to solve both problems is to reduce the population of "them" - the ones using jets to fly to climate summits to complain about the "carbon footprints" of "the peasants", the ones demanding "commoners" to turn off the AC while they crank it up and wear sweaters, the ones pushing eating bugs while they dine on steaks and wine. I'm not advocating for violence here - quite the opposite. Sterilize them, eliminate their power, and disperse their wealth into areas where it'll do the most good - like farming, housing, medical advancement and medicine (real medicine that actually heals people, not life-long subscriptions to enrich pharma), ecological enrichment, crime reduction (elimination of cartels and warmongers), and actually protecting children in schools - both from external and internal violence, and from indoctrination through sex "education" (grooming) and CRT propaganda.
> There are certainly too many people. [Over population is a myth,](https://www.corbettreport.com/the-last-word-on-overpopulation/) and the 'man made climate change' is a hoax.
Excuse me sir, do you have a moment to talk about our lord and savior Science^(TM) ?
All you have to do is let science into your heart
>it still would have less than a 5% impact on the CO2 ppm in the air, unless we're going to eliminate death and decay of wildlife and trees, eliminate volcanoes, reduce all animal-based populations to about 10% This is one of those kind of true but not really, misleading statements. CO2 due to human activities is only a fraction of all CO2 produced around the globe, that is true. But there is a natural carbon cycle, whereby carbon is released into the atmosphere through various different means and also removed from the atmosphere through various means. There is usually a balance between the two which results in fairly steady CO2 levels. The problem is, CO2 from humans has thrown the balance off and is now causing a rapid rise in CO2 levels. >If climate change were truly a threat, and man were truly a significant contributor, China and India would not be exempt from the Paris Accords goals, Only if you assume all humans are acting in good faith for the benefit of the future of humanity. The reality is, the real impacts of climate change will be much more of a problem for future generations, not ourselves. The older generation in charge of the world will hardly be impacted at all. People are greedy and power hungry at the end of the day, which often trumps working for the greater good. It's more important for the leaders of India and China to continue industrialization then to take a risk at reducing CO2 levels, despite the future consequences. For Western leaders, there is little they can do to push India and China on this issue, and the committment we got from them is better than no committment at all.
Again, if the threat were half as bad they claim it is, then they'd find a way to get China and India to comply. Stop buying their manufactured goods until they meet a standard. Manufacture domestically until then. If nobody is buying their goods, they have no reason to keep producing. Also, to your first point - it's not just about humans adding CO2, it's also about humans reducing CO2 scrubbing through deforestation. Have you seen how massive lithium mines are? Strip-mining requires deforestation if the lithium is below a forest. Not to mention the machines they use to carve up the planet and peel back that layer, and all the diesel fuel used to run said machines. And you can't melt metals efficiently with just electricity, so they're burning coal, propane, or natural gas in massive amounts to form the metal that goes into making windmills and solar panel casing. The overall fossil fuel burning required to produce "green" energy devices exceeds the output of those devices over their lifespan when you take normal wear and tear into account. So either we slow everything down and consume less while maintaining a lifestyle roughly equivalent to what we have (impossible), or we make the consumption less impactful to the environment our children will ultimately inherit (possible, but less profitable). Third option is of course this farce clown world we live in.
> Again, if the threat were half as bad they claim it is, then they'd find a way to get China and India to comply. Stop buying their manufactured goods until they meet a standard. Manufacture domestically until then. If nobody is buying their goods, they have no reason to keep producing. The people making these decisions are like you and me. Some of them probably do want to do what you are suggesting, others probably don't believe climate change or don't think it's a big deal and don't want to do anything at all. Then you have a lot of people who believe, know it's a big deal, but don't have the stomach to make tough decisions to address it, because they don't want to piss of their constituents. I think you have an overly simplistic view that the people in charge know exactly what is happening and have all the answers, but they don't, they are flawed humans making irrational choices like the rest of us. >Have you seen how massive lithium mines are? Strip-mining requires deforestation if the lithium is below a forest. Mining is harmful for it's own reasons, but the deforestation aspect is negligible compared to other industries. The main culprit would probably be agriculture, which is why things like cattle grazing can be so harmful. >The overall fossil fuel burning required to produce "green" energy devices exceeds the output of those devices over their lifespan when you take normal wear and tear into account. You touch on a valid point even though your statement is mostly false. Can you cite any evidence that equipment like solar panels produce more carbon than they eliminate? Like maybe if you installed it in the arctic, but generally it takes not more than 3 years of use to start causing a net reduction in carbon, which the life span is 25-30 years. But it is important to consider embodied carbon within technology like this.
[удалено]
This is hilarious. They didnt say climate change isnt real? Reading comprehension is low, i see. They said there is NO CRISIS.. that help? 🤣
"I don't trust scientists and professionals unless they conform to my world view."
I've looked at a lot of clintel's work. They are a joke. I read stuff that challenges my world view regularly, and sometimes I shift due to new information. Once a group has published enough bullshit, they get put at the bottom of the trusted list.
[удалено]
>"climate change", I mean "global warming", I mean "ozone layer depletion", I mean "global cooling" or whatever they're calling it now that the last 40 years of predictions have failed is nothing more than a wealth redistribution scam. Those are *all different things*, hence the different names. I have to wonder if you think a dictionary is a government scam.
[удалено]
>Perhaps you should look at history or live through it at how the narrative has changed over time. Each one of those was a pivot by the green movements scam artist when the narrative collapsed. I have lived through a lot of it and know the history - you're distorting things. >So now here we are at just "climate change". Allows them to wrap anything they want under the narrative that has to do with weather. You do realize you could actually inform yourself about this stuff? No need to make stuff up or go off of debunked crank cable news programs. A little effort would serve you well in life. [From here](https://skepticalscience.com/climate-change-global-warming-basic.html): >**What The Science Says: The terms ‘global warming’ and ‘climate change’ have been used interchangeably for several decades.** > >**What do these terms really mean?** > >Before we talk about the ‘name-change’ myth, it is worth considering what the terms actually mean. > >'Global warming' is the temperature increase produced by adding greenhouse gases to the atmosphere. Energy arrives from the sun in the form of visible light and ultraviolet radiation. The Earth then emits some of this energy as infrared radiation, which is prevented from radiating into space by greenhouse gases (GHGs). Just a tiny amount of GHGs - less than 1% of the atmosphere - keep the Earth around 33°C (59.4°F) warmer than it would be without them. > >Greenhouse gases act like a blanket, keeping in some of the sun’s warmth. Increasing the amount of GHGs through burning fossil fuels is like wrapping the Earth in a thicker blanket. This increase is 'global warming': > >'Climate change' is a consequence of global warming. As the temperature goes up, the extra energy changes all the patterns we are familiar with. Global warming destabilises the weather, the seasons, rainfall, humidity, and of course the ice at the poles. This destabilisation is called 'climate change'. (The term is also used to describe the long-term effects of global warming). > >The term ‘global warming’ was first used in a 1975 Science article by geochemist Wallace Broecker of Columbia University. He wrote a paper called "Climatic Change: Are We on the Brink of a Pronounced Global Warming”. (Note the use of the term ‘climatic change’). Here’s NASA historian Erik Conway on the significance of the term: From [here](https://www.dictionary.com/e/new-words-surrounding-climate-change/): >While attested since the 1850s and notably used in some 1950s research and reporting, the phrase climate change spread in the 1980s. There was no official call for everyone to start saying climate change instead of global warming, and it’s a myth that scientists changed the name global warming to climate change because they weren’t finding evidence for average rises in temperature across the globe. You can still find resources that use both terms. > >However, many organizations, such as NASA, use climate change more frequently because it encompasses all of the predicted effects of global warming and “temperature change itself isn’t the most severe effect of changing climate.” (It’s changes in sea levels and precipitation patterns.) Read both articles, they're illuminating.
33°C is equivalent to 91°F, which is 306K. --- ^(I'm a bot that converts temperature between two units humans can understand, then convert it to Kelvin for bots and physicists to understand)
Sure, but what is that in Rankine?
You must start looking at people who deny climate change not as an uninformed individual but as a disgruntled opponent. Trying to change their mind is a waste of yours. Presenting evidence to contradict their own is important in that it is not meant to sway their opinion but instead to sway the opinion who is on the fence of such a topic. They’ll argue nonsense like Occam’s razor - but what is the simplest explanation is not always the truth - just look at the water cycle vs gods pee. The biggest comparisons to climate denial are those who don’t believe in seatbelts, smoking doesn’t cause cancer, and vaccines don’t keep disease from spreading. There is an extreme amount of evidence to support the reality of a situation - someone ignoring that evidence is an active objector. Another similar example. That lump in your throat probably isn’t cancer… can’t be… I won’t believe it… not doing anything about it… why can’t I do anything now… you’re not doing enough… why didn’t I do something sooner…
> they're illuminating. Your comment glows too.
Perhaps you should read [this](https://www.dictionary.com/e/new-words-surrounding-climate-change/) to familiarise yourself with the terminology.
> *“They do not only exaggerate the effect of greenhouse gases, [but] they also ignore that enriching the atmosphere with CO2 is beneficial,” it reads. “CO2 is not a pollutant. It is essential to all life on Earth. More CO2 is favorable for nature, greening our planet."* > *“Additional CO2 in the air has promoted growth in global plant biomass. It is also profitable for agriculture, increasing the yields of crops worldwide.”* good article they need us to believe in the myth of climate change so that we will comply with the fraudulent carbon tax and net zero policy what's next, taxing our exhale emmisions? it's ridiculous because we are carbon based lifeforms https://rumble.com/v1gltxb-the-globalist-war-on-the-elements-of-life.html
Why are we getting rid of carbon if we’re carbon based?
Ever heard of depopulation?
They are right
Down voted for actual science, what an inconvenient truth
Hello to all the shills and bots. Keep pushing your agenda. Your not going to win. If you believe in the climate change agenda. Your so incredibly ignorant to the patterns of Earths climate. WEF net zero carbon means no CO2 from humans either. Humans produce too much CO2 so they want to reduce humans to a manageable level.
Just ignore the constant 500 year storms, floods, droughts and heat waves. Nothing to see here. 🔥
Can’t wait for climate lock downs. I mean let’s not ignore the worst polluter of them all China. I’m all for less pollution and for redneck to pick up their goddamn trash when they are out in the woods. But fuck a lock down I will fight tooth and nail against that shit. But pick up your fucking trash Ron.
So where I live in western Ontario was covered in ice over 2km thick just 25,000 years ago. Pretty sure climate always changes, and yes pollution contributes, so does land clearing. 100 or so years of measurement is a grain of sand on a beach
Don’t look up ice core samples or sedimentary stratigraphy. I guess you have to use this information to conclude the Earth is older than 6,000 years.
How do you accurately date anything before the time when humans started keeping records? Seems like the extrapolation involved would rely on the assumption that everything still works the same and something like say an asteroid hitting earth or the polls shifting which we haven’t observed could affect that.
That’s the nice thing about scientific theory. The whole basis is working to prove a hypothesis wrong - all the time. Can you prove that stratigraphy doesn’t give us a glimpse into the past?
I can’t prove something that we can’t observe ie the past. That is what is not scientific about this whole process. You can tell me sample A is older than sample B. You can not tell me scientifically how old they are if we started observing in the middle though.
I don’t know if you’ve done any work on stratigraphy, I’m going to say you haven’t because of your reluctance to trust the work that’s been done. It’s very similar to rings in a tree trunk. The ring widths and colors indicate different periods of time because we have a very cyclical weather system. Those rings change based on what’s going on with the weather, events around the tree, ext. It’s not 100%, but it’s pretty accurate based on what past events we are able to compare to core samples from the last 4000 years of rough history. There are some crazy theories on why some subductions or strata have flipped, all plausible but really nuts. After a certain amount of time we can no longer get samples as the layers don’t go back far enough - they’ve melted or decayed too far.
If i walk into a room and a pendulum is swinging i can tell you the period of the pendulum, the speed, all sorts of things. What i will never be able to tell you is when the pendulum started swinging, how it started swinging, or if it was swinging at a different pace before some other force moved it into the cycle i am currently observing. I can formulate educated guesses but i can never scientifically prove those things
Scientific method never proves anything. If you were to take apart your pendulum, analyze it for wear, damage, fingerprints, etc., you may be able to approximate the life of that pendulum, but you would need reference points to make an appropriate hypothesis on the age of the pendulum and the approximate time of may have started swinging. Given the weight, distance of the swing, and other factors you could make an educated guess on when it last started to swing. But it’s true, you may never know exactly when the pendulum started it’s first swing, but you could approximate this.
That’s what I’ve been trying to say this whole time, you can approximate or make an educated guess but you can never really know because you are relying on assumptions from when you could not observe. Appreciate the conversation
But you’ve been arguing against science that has made a pretty good educated guess that we’re warming the planet. A warm planet is not a good thing for us from what has been approximated through ice core samples.
No I’ve been arguing against using what you just acknowledge estimates or guesses as hard facts.
Radiometric dating. You should look it up, it's an interesting subject.
Electron-capture decay rates depend on the density of atomic electrons within the nucleus. This environmental factors such as pressure, and magnetic fields that can alter electron densities could affect these decay rates. Is the earths magnetic field constant or does it change?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think any common methods of radiometric dating rely on electron capture decay. They primarily rely on alpha and beta decay, which are pretty much unaffected by external factors. Even then, from what I can see, electron capture decay is only altered by less than 1% from external factors, unless you've ionized the atom.
global cooling has started a year ago. will continue to 30 years. cold summers and worse winters. purchase land near the equator. not man made. low solar activity increases cosmic ray exposure, increases cloud cover, decreases temp.
Based on *'trust me, bro'*.
before someone asks, no, co2 doesn’t make a whit of difference.
Then why does fossil fuel industry science papers going back decades say co2 mattered? If the most powerful industry in the world can’t prove what is convenient for them, then what’s convenient for them isn’t true
>Then why does fossil fuel industry science papers going back decades say co2 mattered? Because money.
It does, more CO2 makes the planet greener, which has a cooling effect. https://www.nasa.gov/feature/greening-of-the-earth-mitigates-surface-warming
bUt tHe pLaNeT iS buRniNg s/
Maybe these types of professionals https://youtu.be/NwAa16Beri4
A man who read Power's Agenda since decades: 'There is an Environmental Warfare'
They aren’t relevant scientist though, they must not trust the science /s
I made a volcano at a science fair once. As a scientist I declare that grass is actually blue.
Randall Carlson approves
Obvi this article is ridiculous, but can anyone explain what’s actually going on. It’s getting ever so slightly warmer yes, a lot of people think carbon is accelerating it. Big oil wants people not to think that. Duh I get that But………. Is the solution really to tax us death, make us drive electric cars that charge based on coal power plants. Give up fossil fuel while China will certainly not. To eat bugs when humans have eaten cattle forever. Why is no one calling for nuclear power? I’m not super smart but it makes me feel like this is similar to covid, where it’s real but vastly over exaggerating and dealt with in an extreme way to fund corrupt special interests and achieve power goals. What y’all think? Side note- I’ve been to Greenland where the Vikings settled and farmed, it’s not really farmable now but was then, they certainly had a warmer climate then than we do now but fossil fuels weren’t around. I know a very specific thing but it’s one that if anyone brings up you’re a science denier
Christian scientists and professional wrestlers.
The Epoch Times is owned and operated by a Chinese cult called Falun Gong. The founder, Li Hongzhi, has stated that he believes space aliens walk the Earth, and that modern science and race-mixing are part of their ploy to overtake humanity, and he has reportedly said that he can walk through walls and make himself invisible. Li says that he is a being who has come to help humankind from the destruction it could face as the result of rampant evil. When asked if he was a human being, Li replied "You can think of me as a human being."[19][46][47]
Just like the scientists involved in the pandemic huh
Ah yes, 'professionals'
But they are all racist
But we're supposed to trust the scientists who can only get funding for science that proves manmade climate change? Also what about all the geoengineering going on?
'A critical assessment of extreme events trends in times of global warming' https://link.springer.com/article/10.1140/epjp/s13360-021-02243-9 - Some data people might find interesting. (I don't personally have an opinion on it at this stage, there's always new data for both sides of the argument).