9. That Thunberg brat has quite an interesting family-tree. Look it up yourself, but let's just say she didn't just got public through grassroots and didn't coincidentally became the face of this entire propaganda.10. If the people pushing for it truly believed in it, they would make sure to be a good example and not fly to "climate-meetings" with their private-jets and all that jizz.11. The entire scientific field is heavily politicised currently and the peer-review system is flawed. Or in short, this entire thing is a mere pretence to achieve political aims. So even if climate change would be a legit problem, it will not be solved this way as it's not in the interest of those who are using the current propaganda.
-Nothing that has driven climate change in the past can explain what's driving it now.-Things that play a bigger role than humans alter over the course of thousands (if not millions) of years so they can't explain the warming that we're experiencing now.-Tree ring data not matching temperature data isn't "falsifying data"-Stations are inaccurate with regards to weather but not climate (look up the central limit theorem).-We produce very little CO2 compared to the rest of the biosphere but the CO2 produced by the atmosphere gets re-absorbed during photosynthesis so it's in equilibrium. Plants can absorb some of the excess CO2 that we produce but not all of it because when CO2 is released by the biosphere via the decomposition of plant matter, it also releases nitrates, phosphates and potassium that plants need to grow but when we burn CO2 we don't, disrupting the equilibrium and making plant growth limited by other factors. So no we aren't responsible for the release of most CO2 BUT we are responsible for the increase in the steady state concentration.-You can be sure but you're still wrong-Economic factors caused the decline of nuclear power, not environmentalists. -The risks you mentioned are a drop in the barrel when compared to the danger posed by pumping CO2 in the atmosphere. And unlike the other doomsday predictions this is backed by scientific evidence.-The peer reviewed system is flawed (no shit, no system is perfect) but it beats some random internet crank-In short, you're full of shit.-
Nobody denies what a greenhouse effect is, the argument is whether or not it's natural or manmade. All scientists following correct procedures with adequate data have found that we are responsible, even those whose employers had an agenda.
@Twalli "Nobody denies what a greenhouse effect is..."I wish that were true. There are several examples on this question."... political bias and an agenda...""... Venus and Mars have also been experiencing the same thing...""... people are getting rich off this shit...""... forces outside of human control.""... Volcanoes... The Sun is getting bigger and hotter. "etc.
@goaded They deny that we are experiencing a greenhouse effect, but they do agree on what constitutes one.
Except climate scientists have looked into what caused climate change in the past and there really isn't anything that drove it in the past that can explain what's driving it now.www.nature.com/.../s41586-019-1401-2
@Ad_Quid_Orator So, the last one occurred before science, before recordings, etc, and they couldn't understand why? Shocking. Most say they can't find a reason for it now, and attribute it to multiple other things besides human involvement, and people still say "man made"? Also, the sources for that article are, IIRC, not peer reviewed, and done while being funded by climate change organizations. That may not make all of their opinions invalid, but it sure casts some doubt as to the credibility.
Actually that article is from nature which is peer reviewed and what they found was that a global pattern of warming such that we are experiencing now isn't precedented over the course of at least the past 2000 years.
It was confusing for a lot of people who didn't understand why "global warming" was resulting in more severe winters. Even given the year-on-year rise in average temperatures "climate change" is easier to grasp. No one is removing "man made" from the equation which is why industrial combines have their knickers in a twist over it. But as the deniers like to say "It's all about making money."
Thanks for the MHO! :)
LOL, quite the facetious answer! There’s nothing like heading south on I-75 just past Detroit and smelling the smoke/vapor you see. At night, the flames are pretty.
Those called fireworks in the hood, bet you all miss out on that where you be from? And shit, far as the smell after a bit you won't even notice it, YOLO !! What doesn't kill us makes us stronger. Motor City..
People are still lighting them off. No joke, I’ve been in Oakland county, Wayne County, and Macomb County over the last 2 weeks, and people have lit them off. I was previously referring to the smoke/vapors/flames from the industrial plant just south of Detroit on I-75.
I know what you were talking about. Wow so you got none of that. ~groan~
Scroll Down to Read Other Opinions
There's no such thing as a free market, and the petrochemical industry gets about $8bn in subsidies from the US government every year (about 2/5 NASA's entire budget).
I wonder who the idiot is who rejects science and downvoted me?
Sorry to inform you its all in vein when oil companies like bp and exxon pollute more than you can recycle in tens of thousands of years. Grow up
@Jackieboi Well I also go on to say that I don't believe humanity has all that much impact on Global Warming, so it's more about me trying to do my small part than it is about actually making a big impact...
Not trying to shit on you, just think you're utterly wasting your time. You wanna make a difference? Educate yourself before you vote, pay attention to politics.
@Jackieboi I'm a political science guy, myself, so yeah. For future reference, telling someone to grow up makes it seem like you are shitting on them.
I apologize. It comes so natural because most enviromentalists i meet dont have a f clue.
Correction; the loudest voices THAT YOU'VE HEARD. In the developing world people are struggling because of it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cl4Uv9_7KJE
Some newspapers might have been, but scientific literature was not.journals.ametsoc.org/doi/10.1175/2008BAMS2370.1"An enduring popular myth suggests that in the 1970s the climate science community was predicting “global cooling” and an “imminent” ice age, an observation frequently used by those who would undermine what climate scientists say today about the prospect of global warming. A review of the literature suggests that, on the contrary, greenhouse warming even then dominated scientists' thinking as being one of the most important forces shaping Earth's climate on human time scales."
The atmosphere is but a thin whisp on the planet and we have released enough carbon dioxide into the atmosphere to increase the concentration to levels that are higher then they've been in the past 20 million years (and back then the world was a lot warmer).
I agree with everything you said, except for the Earth existing after humanity is gone from Earth. Humanity and Earth will disappear from this location at about the same time.
@mrkdvsn Unlikely we're the sixth great extinction and we're sprinting towards that faster than Usain Bolt could imagine.
Except solar output is decreasing.