monkeylove
Posts: 166 +52
It's greener because various countries have been reversing deforestation. Meanwhile, fresh water supplies, soil arability, etc., are experiencing problems.
Your CO2 point is nonsense: the world isn't a lab.
Just 36 companies account for 50% of global CO2 emissions, report reveals
- Thread starter Skye Jacobs
- Start date
It's greener because various countries have been reversing deforestation. Meanwhile, fresh water supplies, soil arability, etc., are experiencing problems.
Your CO2 point is nonsense: the world isn't a lab.
monkeylove
Posts: 166 +52
Actually, globalists want the opposite.
monkeylove
Posts: 166 +52
CO2 has a forcing factor, as explained by the NAS in its report on the matter. Even Berkeley Earth, which is funded by deniers, concurs.
m3tavision
Posts: 1,733 +1,510
No young man, Globalists seek to bring down Nations, under one Global control of their Elitist agendas.
That is what DAVOS and globalists are all about^
THEY (the super-ultra-rich) want YOU to eat bugs because beef is a Co2 pollutant... while they fly around the world eating beef on planes..!
Wake up bruh..
Eldrach
Posts: 359 +421
China is the fastest adopter of sustainable energy in the world and has made huge strides the last years and has a net zero plan to cut all coal plants.
China, as the biggest industry country in the world and with a population 5 times that of the USA will always be among the highest just due to share size - but travel to the major cities of China and you'll see that they're adopting green technology faster than any other country out of pure necessity if nothing else.
That people in the USA thinks there are "two political views" in Total shows how much you fall for stupid propaganda. The world is full of shades of grey. You may not like China and communism - which is totally OK - but they get **** done instead of blaming it on "the other political side" everything something is up for discussion.
Yes, carbon dioxide is a pollutant
The Republican Party of Virginia recently held a weekend bash at a Dulles hotel to celebrate its sweep in the statewide
www.politifact.com
Overview of Greenhouse Gases | US EPA
Information on emissions and removals of the main greenhouse gases to and from the atmosphere.
www.epa.gov
How is Co2 Pollution? | Department of Earth Sciences
By Dr. Robert Thorson Take a deep breath. That's oxygen going in. Now exhale. That's carbon dioxide going out. Did you just pollute the atmosphere ...
earthsciences.uconn.edu
Carbon Dioxide Emissions | US EPA
Information on emissions and removals of the main greenhouse gases to and from the atmosphere.
www.epa.gov
Is CO2 a pollutant?
<p>While there are direct ways in which CO2 is a pollutant (acidification of the ocean), its primary impact is its greenhouse warming effect. While the greenhouse effect is a natural occurence, too much warming has severe negative impacts on agriculture, health and environment.</p>
skepticalscience.com
If that is the ONLY correction you would make, you have a bigger problem than denial.
It's also a massive consensus amongst scientists.
The good thing is we don't need people like you. But I don't know any science that needs deniers and conspiracy theorists.
Do you know what all conspiracy theories have in common? Not one has a shred of proof. Just tin foil, propeller hats and fools.
Again. Natural balance is lost on someone like you. It's a fancy learnin thing I guess.
Finally. Common sense.
I would argue there has NEVER been climate hysteria.
It's all been based on solid science and empirical evidence, held out for everyone to read and learn, so anyone but a complete dipshit could understand.
Just one time, I would love for you to prove yourself and what you say. How about that gem!?
Check your messages please.
Last edited:
That's ridiculous. Floods etc. have always existed. They didn't start the moment The New Ice Age (the previous climate scare) all of a sudden became Global Warming. "Eats up around a third of global economic growth" is ridiculous squared. Insurance rates are rising because of inflation. One of the reasons for inflation is the trillions wasted on 'climate change'.
Why these wasted trillions didn't fix the "problem", by the way? We are wasting money non-stop for decades, but the "problem" allegedly gets bigger. Apparently the sun will not cool off because we're wasting money, so maybe we should stop wasting them?
All the pseudo-authorities you listed are people that work 'climate change'. What do you expect them to say?
Maybe "We don't want our well paid, zero responsibility jobs. We don't want to attend lavish climate conferences in luxurious resorts all around the world. We want real jobs, despite not having the necessary skills ... " Some do say that, but they are immediately replaced.
I completely agree that the denial of empirical, easily observable evidence is foolish. How foolish one should be to deny the Earth is getting greener and the crops better?
Pretty sure you don't know what a straw man is. But if you can point to any of my statements being incorrect or taken out of context, that would be very interesting...
Climategate: "The only rule in climate change is 'You DO NOT CHALLENGE CLIMATE CHANGE'."
Signs change: Signs at the Glacier National Park warning that its signature glaciers would be gone by 2020 are being changed to "When they will completely disappear depends on how and when we act. One thing is consistent: the glaciers in the park are shrinking."
Hockey stick: See 'Climategate'.
Spawning They/Them's: LOL. Please tell me I'm misrepresenting that gaggle of psychos.
Wrong again. I'm sure you hear that a lot.
Those are the people that RESEARCHED climate change for decades.
And published their proof 10s of thousands of times.
I get my info and reference points from my stepdaughter.
She works for the NWS in Silver Springs and Fort Worth.
Where is your proof? You have mine.
Nice. So, before we take this deeper. Please be clear.
You are saying we have made no progress on climate change. Correct?
There's plenty of proof that the climate changes. You don't need researchers for that, having a window is enough. There's no proof that human activity has anything to do with climate variability.
As for whether we have progress on climate change, I don't know what to say. In what units do we measure progress on climate change, and with what devices? E.g. we measure voltage in volts, with voltmeters - what's the equivalent for progress on climate change?
But the climate changes in the last 75 years are unprecedented. And there ARE a lot of dangerous outcomes. It's like with our cars. Maintenance is way cheaper than repairs.
Excellent question man, but I know you have the internet. Check it:
have we made progress on climate change - Bing
Intelligent search from Bing makes it easier to quickly find what you’re looking for and rewards you.
And just a side note, I get just as disgusted by the climate change "dooms day" crowd on the left as I do with the "I don't want the facts" crowd on the right.
Karlos95
Posts: 439 +335
I agree, climate change is dead, but not the way we still **** up this planet... We need to reduce plastic use, plant trees and maintain the soil. Otherwise, this whole infinite resources cope will soon be proven wrong.
The real disease to the planet was never the emissions, but always how we use resources. We need sustainability, just not the sustainability that Gates is trying to push...
m3tavision
Posts: 1,733 +1,510
Sounds nice^
Except China is building the equivalent of 5 Coal plants a year... & spending political dark-money sums to global activists, to make noise in the other direction (attacking others).
Understand, that Coal plants in USA have retrofitted "scrubbers" that cost billions so that dirty air doesn't go into atmosphere, while in China.. who cares about such things..? They are not adopting scrubbers, or caring about the environment & nobody is making them..! (like required in US and elsewhere across the globe.)
Again, why would CCP care about their (your) pollution..!
Why do you and so many here care so much about Co2 as a pollutant..? (it's a damn cult)
It's like saying WATER is a pollutant...(lol) and then attempt to link me a bunch super-ultra-pseudo-PENN state'esque links... that make a mockery of natural gases, not understanding volume and natural occurrence vrs unnatural occurrence.. and saying water (h2o) is toxic, bcz in one study found that if you consumed to much of it, or 100% in it, h2o leads to death...
...as an argument^ to C02 toxicity study as being a pollutant...! (lol)
Scav thoz links^ (as another already told you) are studies by elitists shillz, you are proving my point. They are self-funding by crying louder..! They are shills to pseudo science.
If u care do simple things, they add up.
Plant moAr trees and learn to carry your fav chopstx (don't use plastics), learn conservation and self reliance.
Unprecedented?
How do you know, given that we have direct accurate global measurements for about 50 years (since we have weather satellites) and inaccurate partial data for about 200 years (which in geological terms is like a millisecond).
That's like saying the stock prices for the day are unprecedented for the first minute of trading. No one in their right mind should make decisions based on temporary information only.
None of that is 'progress on climate change'. It's the change of the share or assorted renewables and CO2 emissions. There's no reason to believe that the share of renewables or the amount of man-made CO2 affects climate variability.Excellent question man, but I know you have the internet. Check it:
have we made progress on climate change - Bing
Intelligent search from Bing makes it easier to quickly find what you’re looking for and rewards you.www.bing.com
So the article is a little misleading and believe a clarification should be added. This includes Scope 3 emissions, basically they include when a product is combusted which is 90% of these emissions alongside the Scope 1 emissions during the actual process of finding and extracting hydrocarbons. This is listing the companies, but not the customers who actually create the carbon emissions when they use the product that is in demand - if there was no demand it would stop. While I believe these companies have a role to play we need to be clear on the entire energy chain and not just focus on this part.
I'm not repeating myself. Especially for you. Go back a few of my posts to learn how Earths historical climate data is found.
ALL of that is progress. Keep your head in the sand. Adults are hard at work.
I was talking about direct accurate global measurements - these exist for ~50 years.
"Historical climate data" is neither direct, nor accurate nor global. It's assumption -based guesswork.
As for progress, I'm still waiting for you to reveal the big secret - in what units do you measure it?
No, we don't have anything like that.We have direct and accurate measurements going back many centuries.
Ice cores contain air from the time trapped in bubbles.
You keep talking even though you know very, very little.
Loading…
www.science.org
What can ice cores tell us about earthʼs history? - California Learning Resource Network
What Can Ice Cores Tell Us About Earth’s History? Ice cores are long, cylindrical samples of ice that are extracted […]www.clrn.org
"The frozen water is like a natural archive of the Earth’s history, containing data about temperature, atmospheric composition, and other environmental conditions."
Atmospheric Gases
Volcanic Eruptions
Greenhouse Gases
Last Ice Age
Greenhouse Gas Levels
Volcanic Eruptions
Talking to you is like trying to explain to a 1st grader why a boo boo hurts.
If I send you an ice cube, can you tell me the world's average temperature at the time water turned to ice?
Ice cores may provide approximate averages for gases, but not for temperatures.
Read the article, it explains it all.
Ice core samples provide the same analysis we can get from things all around us today.
Yes, they can. If you were willing to learn facts, you would have discovered it's not the ice itself. It's the air bubbles, trapped IN the ice at the time it froze.
Here is my original post. Cleaned up.
We have direct and accurate measurements going back many centuries.
Ice cores contain air from the time trapped in bubbles.
You keep talking even though you have almost zero facts.
In truth, any fact you provide you do by accident.
Loading…
www.science.org
What can ice cores tell us about earthʼs history? - California Learning Resource Network
What Can Ice Cores Tell Us About Earth’s History? Ice cores are long, cylindrical samples of ice that are extracted […]
www.clrn.org
Atmospheric Gases
Volcanic Eruptions
Greenhouse Gases
Last Ice Age
Greenhouse Gas Levels
Volcanic Eruptions
Ice Cores: Why They're Crucial in Climate Research
Discover the crucial role of ice cores in climate research. Learn how these icy time capsules reveal past temperatures, atmospheric composition, and enviro
toxigon.com
But it's not just about temperature and gases. Ice cores also preserve traces of volcanic ash, dust from distant deserts, and even pollutants from industrial activities. These impurities provide clues about past events like volcanic eruptions, changes in ocean currents, and the onset of industrialization. It's like reading a history book, but one written by nature itself.
[Source: https://toxigon.com]"
Last edited:
Is that a joke? When you go to tertiary education or complete sciences and mathematics do you source link everything you do. I'm simply passing on information I've read about over time. For me to provide a source, it would be many links and not necessarily from the same manufacturer. Even then I'd be skeptical about the exact numbers if a business provided the complete life cycle of costings. It also might be privileged information kept within a company. I'm giving a generalized view and process.
No, they can't. If I send you an ice cube, can you tell me - not from the ice itself but from the air bubbles trapped IN the ice - what was the temperature around? No. Trapped bubbles give you a rough approximation for the amount of gases and other stuff in the vicinity. None of that has a direct, unambiguous link to temperatures. Everything in the bubbles - gases, isotopes and their ratios, ashes etc. depends on hundreds of interdependent variables. If the amount of something is X, there are a zillion possible states that may have that amount at X.
Besides, less than 10% of Earth's surface is permanently covered by ice, and the areas are concentrated around the poles. Ice cores miss 90%+ of the picture anyway.
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
Kuwait declares cryptocurrency mining illegal amid power crisis crackdown- Squid Surprise replied
-
Blizzard and Nexon working on new StarCraft game and a mobile version of Overwatch
- Squid Surprise replied
