Report shows one quarter of all tweets about climate change are produced by bots

EClyde

Posts: 2,348   +915
Did you visit the link before posting that? I really cannot understand for the life of me how many people visit this site that consider themselves "enthusiast" in technology and have the audacity to deny this kind of scientifically proven facts with nothing but Facebook and Twitter posts to defend themselves, smh.
What I care about is pollution. What are you doing about it besides posting? If the energy and money spent on the climate change hoax was invested in cleaning the Pacific of all the plastic it would be clean...today...now. What do I do about pollution....I pick up garbage that ain't mine and take it to the dump...or recycling center for the tight pants set. Climate change is baloney
 
  • Like
Reactions: clytndn

fadingfool

Posts: 189   +191
They've also already studied the sun and it's impact. That's actually mentioned in the article I linked. Long story short, the sun is not responsible.
https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/03/TAR-06.pdf

Section 6.11 is the current understanding of the solar forcing - note the conclusion "However, because of the large uncertainty in the absolute value of TSI and the reconstruction methods our assessment of the “level of scientific understanding” is “very low”."
The Svensmark hypothesis is similarly discounted. So a bit of a leap to discount the sun with our current level of scientific knowledge.
 

mbrowne5061

Posts: 1,684   +958
Please provide a source to your claim that humans as the primary driver of global warming has been discredited. I can provide a link to NASA saying otherwise:

https://climate.nasa.gov/causes/

Of course, there are dozens of educational and research bodies supporting this data.

FYI, the article specifically states that only 5% of comments supporting climate change data were bots. Far more were spreading misinformation, like you are here.




I suggest you visit the link above.
"Scientists attribute the global warming trend observed since the mid-20th century to the human expansion of the "greenhouse effect"1"

The very first sentence. You should read your own link.

Edit: I thought you were denying it was human driven - too early in the morning and need more Tea. My bad.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Charles Olson

pit1209

Posts: 137   +206
What I care about is pollution. What are you doing about it besides posting? If the energy and money spent on the climate change hoax was invested in cleaning the Pacific of all the plastic it would be clean...today...now. What do I do about pollution....I pick up garbage that ain't mine and take it to the dump...or recycling center for the tight pants set. Climate change is baloney
Is baloney based on what? The money spent where is the data? or maybe you think that the little world inside your head translate to reality. Science is not a religion where we have to give part of our salary to be part of this or believe without proper explanation, is like this anti-vax nonsense, people just try to justifiy their ways without proper thinking.
 

Robertrogue

Posts: 98   +56
So let me get this straight, the bots that supposedly caused by Russia that caused Hillary to lose the election is now out there trying to convince the public that global warming is fake? Yet only some are saying it's true? Oh, okay. I will chime in with proven science, NATURE is NOT predictable, weather is NOT 100% predictable, and there is no way my driving a truck or motorcycle or boat or car is the cause of the Earth to have an average temperature rise of 4-7 degrees C over the last 5000 years. Or a 1.33 F rise in the last 100 years. It is the largest pile of feces ever put out to try to blame humans for temperature changes in the atmosphere. All the links I have read can be counter proven with just a few items or incidents that transpired over the last 250 years. Humans may contribute with a handful of things, but on a global scale it is minute at best. If we entered into an ice age over the next 25 years they would have a study showing it was humans driving cars and cows farting. If you look into the data, its easy to see the trillions and trillions of dollars made from the Carbon crisis all over the world. Governments are using it to garner power and money.
 
  • Like
Reactions: clytndn

pit1209

Posts: 137   +206
So let me get this straight, the bots that supposedly caused by Russia that caused Hillary to lose the election is now out there trying to convince the public that global warming is fake? Yet only some are saying it's true? Oh, okay. I will chime in with proven science, NATURE is NOT predictable, weather is NOT 100% predictable, and there is no way my driving a truck or motorcycle or boat or car is the cause of the Earth to have an average temperature rise of 4-7 degrees C over the last 5000 years. Or a 1.33 F rise in the last 100 years. It is the largest pile of feces ever put out to try to blame humans for temperature changes in the atmosphere. All the links I have read can be counter proven with just a few items or incidents that transpired over the last 250 years. Humans may contribute with a handful of things, but on a global scale it is minute at best. If we entered into an ice age over the next 25 years they would have a study showing it was humans driving cars and cows farting. If you look into the data, its easy to see the trillions and trillions of dollars made from the Carbon crisis all over the world. Governments are using it to garner power and money.
May we see that data?
 

Evernessince

Posts: 5,461   +6,132
So let me get this straight, the bots that supposedly caused by Russia that caused Hillary to lose the election is now out there trying to convince the public that global warming is fake? Yet only some are saying it's true? Oh, okay. I will chime in with proven science, NATURE is NOT predictable, weather is NOT 100% predictable, and there is no way my driving a truck or motorcycle or boat or car is the cause of the Earth to have an average temperature rise of 4-7 degrees C over the last 5000 years. Or a 1.33 F rise in the last 100 years. It is the largest pile of feces ever put out to try to blame humans for temperature changes in the atmosphere. All the links I have read can be counter proven with just a few items or incidents that transpired over the last 250 years. Humans may contribute with a handful of things, but on a global scale it is minute at best. If we entered into an ice age over the next 25 years they would have a study showing it was humans driving cars and cows farting. If you look into the data, its easy to see the trillions and trillions of dollars made from the Carbon crisis all over the world. Governments are using it to garner power and money.
1. No one said anything about Russia or Hilary. They mentioned bots, they did not link them specifically to Russia.

2. Climate change isn't a study of nature or weather. It is a study of the climate.

3. "Current data (from direct measurements of the atmosphere to historical records of industry) tells us that between 1751 and 1987 fossil fuels put about 737 billion tons of CO2 into the atmosphere. Between just 1987 and 2014 it was about the same mass: 743 billion tons. Total CO2 from industrialized humans in the past 263 years: 1,480 billion tons."

"Dire warnings that we've crossed 400 parts-per-million of atmospheric CO2 "


You say there is no way humans are causing it yet there is factually more CO2 in the air we breathe. Pray tell, who is emitting that CO2? Humans you say? Guess what, CO2 is a greenhouse gas that traps in heat.

Well, let's see you back your words up and disprove the data.
 

Robertrogue

Posts: 98   +56
1. No one said anything about Russia or Hilary. They mentioned bots, they did not link them specifically to Russia.

2. Climate change isn't a study of nature or weather. It is a study of the climate.

3. "Current data (from direct measurements of the atmosphere to historical records of industry) tells us that between 1751 and 1987 fossil fuels put about 737 billion tons of CO2 into the atmosphere. Between just 1987 and 2014 it was about the same mass: 743 billion tons. Total CO2 from industrialized humans in the past 263 years: 1,480 billion tons."

"Dire warnings that we've crossed 400 parts-per-million of atmospheric CO2 "


You say there is no way humans are causing it yet there is factually more CO2 in the air we breathe. Pray tell, who is emitting that CO2? Humans you say? Guess what, CO2 is a greenhouse gas that traps in heat.

Well, let's see you back your words up and disprove the data.
Here is my counter to that, how much CO2 is emitted to the atmosphere, not from humans? Where would that be from and what part of it is the original data assuming from Humans? Also, plants intake CO2 and change it into O. What is the data showing where this is in the equation? Third, and most of all, where is the CO2 from decay and rot on land and in the oceans and lakes counted in this large increase of CO2 into the atmosphere? Not taking into account the actual human impact from WW1 and WW2 or the 30 years of nuclear testing done after WW2, you cannot prove without a shade of doubt that driving my damn car or burning fossil fuels is the culprit of higher CO2 levels!! It can be because of natural things in the climate that are NOT from humans!!
 
  • Like
Reactions: clytndn

Evernessince

Posts: 5,461   +6,132
Here is my counter to that, how much CO2 is emitted to the atmosphere, not from humans? Where would that be from and what part of it is the original data assuming from Humans? Also, plants intake CO2 and change it into O. What is the data showing where this is in the equation? Third, and most of all, where is the CO2 from decay and rot on land and in the oceans and lakes counted in this large increase of CO2 into the atmosphere? Not taking into account the actual human impact from WW1 and WW2 or the 30 years of nuclear testing done after WW2, you cannot prove without a shade of doubt that driving my damn car or burning fossil fuels is the culprit of higher CO2 levels!! It can be because of natural things in the climate that are NOT from humans!!
And it just so happens I have the exact page to counter this: https://skepticalscience.com/human-co2-smaller-than-natural-emissions.htm

"Although our output of 29 gigatons of CO2 is tiny compared to the 750 gigatons moving through the carbon cycle each year, it adds up because the land and ocean cannot absorb all of the extra CO2. About 40% of this additional CO2 is absorbed. The rest remains in the atmosphere, and as a consequence, atmospheric CO2 is at its highest level in 15 to 20 million years "
 

Robertrogue

Posts: 98   +56
And it just so happens I have the exact page to counter this: https://skepticalscience.com/human-co2-smaller-than-natural-emissions.htm

"Although our output of 29 gigatons of CO2 is tiny compared to the 750 gigatons moving through the carbon cycle each year, it adds up because the land and ocean cannot absorb all of the extra CO2. About 40% of this additional CO2 is absorbed. The rest remains in the atmosphere, and as a consequence, atmospheric CO2 is at its highest level in 15 to 20 million years "
Oh, there is again an assumption. There is no proof that this is true. It is complete assumption, the CO2 levels from 15 to 25 million years ago are assumed and then compared to today. There is new data that may show degradation of the CO2 and O2 levels found in the ice cores pulled from the arctic. There is a chance that the levels could be as much as 10-20% off in accuracy, unless you know someone who has verification from 20 million years ago of the true CO2 levels from then.
 
  • Like
Reactions: clytndn

Robertrogue

Posts: 98   +56
Oh, there is again an assumption. There is no proof that this is true. It is complete assumption, the CO2 levels from 15 to 25 million years ago are assumed and then compared to today. There is new data that may show degradation of the CO2 and O2 levels found in the ice cores pulled from the arctic. There is a chance that the levels could be as much as 10-20% off in accuracy, unless you know someone who has verification from 20 million years ago of the true CO2 levels from then.
This is what I am talking about. It is simple in saying that there is nuances and the data may not be what they think it is.

 
  • Like
Reactions: clytndn

Evernessince

Posts: 5,461   +6,132
Oh, there is again an assumption. There is no proof that this is true. It is complete assumption, the CO2 levels from 15 to 25 million years ago are assumed and then compared to today. There is new data that may show degradation of the CO2 and O2 levels found in the ice cores pulled from the arctic. There is a chance that the levels could be as much as 10-20% off in accuracy, unless you know someone who has verification from 20 million years ago of the true CO2 levels from then.
/facepalm

"The most important property of ice cores is that they are a direct archive of past atmospheric gasses. Air is trapped at the base of the firn layer, and when the compacted snow turns to ice, the air is trapped in bubbles. This transition normally occurs 50-100 m below the surface[6]. The offset between the age of the air and the age of the ice is accounted for with well-understood models of firn densification and gas trapping. The air bubbles are extracted by melting, crushing or grating the ice in a vacuum.


This method provides detailed records of carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide going back over 650,000 years[6]. Ice core records globally agree on these levels, and they match instrumented measurements from the 1950s onwards, confirming their reliability. Carbon dioxide measurements from older ice in Greenland is less reliable, as meltwater layers have elevated carbon dioxide (CO2 is highly soluble in water). Older records of carbon dioxide are therefore best taken from Antarctic ice cores."



FYI, we were not talking about temperature. We were talking about CO2 levels. The link you provided is off topic. Just a heads up though, greenland is the only location where Ice Cores may not be the best measure of past temperatures due to excessive ice melt. CO2 is measured completely differently and is not affected. That's also mentioned in the article I linked above. Once again though, not related to CO2.

Also, why did you make a 2nd post to quote yourself and agree with your own statement? Kind of creepy...
 
Last edited:

Capaill

Posts: 1,200   +737
Let's apply some logic here:

1. Yes, the planet's climate is cyclical over millions of years. The planet's land mass has been encased in ice in a few ice ages. So the movement towards the next ice age is normal and expected.

2. There are a LOT of humans living on this planet now. Objectively too many. In order to sustain this many people, humans have destroyed large tracts of trees to make room for housing and farmland, and also raised and bred many farmland animals.

3. Mankind has invented pollution on a massive scale, starting only 250 years ago in the Industrial Revolution of the late 18th Century in Britain and spread today to all parts of the world.

4. Where we often view Europe and the US as the world leaders in industry and therefore the creators of this recent pollution, these areas are small in terms of population. The rest of the world - China, India, Africa, South America - are rapidly catching up. They have much larger populations so the impacts of their industry are even greater.

5. It is foolish to think that the US and Europe alone can implement modern environmentally-friendly machinery and practices and think that this will resolve the climate issue. The real problem now is the rapidly developing 2nd and 3rd world countries that are desparately playing catch-up with the "West", without any regard for the environment.

So, yes, #1 is happening and is one cause of the mess we find ourselves slipping into. But #2, #3, #4, #5 are also real and cannot be ignored. The solution, if one is even possible, needs a world change. Whole countries need to step up and make positive changes. If the US won't do it, then we'll need to rely on Europe, China and any other nation brave enough to hamstring their economic development for a greater good.

I hope that more people realize that by helping the world, they help themselves.
It may sound sappy but this is spot on. Forget the bickering over who started it and who caused it and who is to blame for what. Recognise that we only have 1 planet and our future generations are depending on the choices we make today. Break the cycle where profits > everything else. Do something good for the world and the people in it. If you cannot do that, then accept that we're all going to Hell and humanity is the cause.

In the wise words of Agent Smith:
I'd like to share a revelation that I've had during my time here. It came to me when I tried to classify your species and I realized that you're not actually mammals. Every mammal on this planet instinctively develops a natural equilibrium with the surrounding environment but you humans do not. You move to an area and you multiply and multiply until every natural resource is consumed and the only way you can survive is to spread to another area. There is another organism on this planet that follows the same pattern. Do you know what it is? A virus. Human beings are a disease, a cancer of this planet.
 

Robertrogue

Posts: 98   +56
/facepalm

"The most important property of ice cores is that they are a direct archive of past atmospheric gasses. Air is trapped at the base of the firn layer, and when the compacted snow turns to ice, the air is trapped in bubbles. This transition normally occurs 50-100 m below the surface[6]. The offset between the age of the air and the age of the ice is accounted for with well-understood models of firn densification and gas trapping. The air bubbles are extracted by melting, crushing or grating the ice in a vacuum.


This method provides detailed records of carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide going back over 650,000 years[6]. Ice core records globally agree on these levels, and they match instrumented measurements from the 1950s onwards, confirming their reliability. Carbon dioxide measurements from older ice in Greenland is less reliable, as meltwater layers have elevated carbon dioxide (CO2 is highly soluble in water). Older records of carbon dioxide are therefore best taken from Antarctic ice cores."



FYI, we were not talking about temperature. We were talking about CO2 levels. The link you provided is off topic. Just a heads up though, greenland is the only location where Ice Cores may not be the best measure of past temperatures due to excessive ice melt. CO2 is measured completely differently and is not affected. That's also mentioned in the article I linked above. Once again though, not related to CO2.

Also, why did you make a 2nd post to quote yourself and agree with your own statement? Kind of creepy...


This is the ice core readings, it shows CO2 levels higher 300k years ago than now, how is that so? It seems if you are correct and I am wrong about the accuracy of the samples, then apparently before humans were driving cars and running power plants, the CO2 levels were too high.......maybe we are not the only cause for higher CO2? Also, after a time of elevated levels it shows a steep decline and then a cooling period, or is it a steep cooling period and then a lowering of CO2?

A difficulty in ice core dating is that gases can diffuse through firn, so the ice at a given depth may be substantially older than the gases trapped in it. As a result, there are two chronologies for a given ice core: one for the ice, and one for the trapped gases. To determine the relationship between the two, models have been developed for the depth at which gases are trapped for a given location, but their predictions have not always proved reliable.[39][40] At locations with very low snowfall, such as Vostok, the uncertainty in the difference between ages of ice and gas can be over 1,000 years.[41]

"The density and size of the bubbles trapped in ice provide an indication of crystal size at the time they formed. The size of a crystal is related to its growth rate, which in turn depends on the temperature, so the properties of the bubbles can be combined with information on accumulation rates and firn density to calculate the temperature when the firn formed.[42]"
 
  • Like
Reactions: clytndn

pit1209

Posts: 137   +206

This is the ice core readings, it shows CO2 levels higher 300k years ago than now, how is that so? It seems if you are correct and I am wrong about the accuracy of the samples, then apparently before humans were driving cars and running power plants, the CO2 levels were too high.......maybe we are not the only cause for higher CO2? Also, after a time of elevated levels it shows a steep decline and then a cooling period, or is it a steep cooling period and then a lowering of CO2?

A difficulty in ice core dating is that gases can diffuse through firn, so the ice at a given depth may be substantially older than the gases trapped in it. As a result, there are two chronologies for a given ice core: one for the ice, and one for the trapped gases. To determine the relationship between the two, models have been developed for the depth at which gases are trapped for a given location, but their predictions have not always proved reliable.[39][40] At locations with very low snowfall, such as Vostok, the uncertainty in the difference between ages of ice and gas can be over 1,000 years.[41]

"The density and size of the bubbles trapped in ice provide an indication of crystal size at the time they formed. The size of a crystal is related to its growth rate, which in turn depends on the temperature, so the properties of the bubbles can be combined with information on accumulation rates and firn density to calculate the temperature when the firn formed.[42]"
So basically you are stating that the more than 7 billion people, 1.2 billion cars and hundreds of thousand of factories since more than 200 years ago as well as the obvious pollution and massive deforestation that comes from that, has nothing to do with climate change? Forget about the data and just use common sense.
 

Robertrogue

Posts: 98   +56
Even if ice age is a cycle, ocean acidification by CO2 is real, crabs and such are soon going extinct, air pollution is also real, killing 7 million humans every year.
"The World Health Organization estimates that 4.6 million people die each year from causes directly attributable to air pollution. Many of these mortalities are attributable to indoor air pollution. Worldwide more deaths per year are linked to air pollution than to automobile accidents."
 
  • Like
Reactions: clytndn

koblongata

Posts: 335   +141
"The World Health Organization estimates that 4.6 million people die each year from causes directly attributable to air pollution. Many of these mortalities are attributable to indoor air pollution. Worldwide more deaths per year are linked to air pollution than to automobile accidents."
Yes, 4.2 million deaths due to "outdoor" pollution, "indoor" (smoking, cooking, etc) pollution caused about 3.8 million deaths...

 

Evernessince

Posts: 5,461   +6,132
A difficulty in ice core dating is that gases can diffuse through firn, so the ice at a given depth may be substantially older than the gases trapped in it. As a result, there are two chronologies for a given ice core: one for the ice, and one for the trapped gases. To determine the relationship between the two, models have been developed for the depth at which gases are trapped for a given location, but their predictions have not always proved reliable.[39][40] At locations with very low snowfall, such as Vostok, the uncertainty in the difference between ages of ice and gas can be over 1,000 years.[41]

"The density and size of the bubbles trapped in ice provide an indication of crystal size at the time they formed. The size of a crystal is related to its growth rate, which in turn depends on the temperature, so the properties of the bubbles can be combined with information on accumulation rates and firn density to calculate the temperature when the firn formed.[42]"
So how exactly does age accuracy translate to CO2 inaccuracy? Once again, you are trying to force one topic onto another.


This is the ice core readings, it shows CO2 levels higher 300k years ago than now, how is that so? It seems if you are correct and I am wrong about the accuracy of the samples, then apparently before humans were driving cars and running power plants, the CO2 levels were too high.......maybe we are not the only cause for higher CO2? Also, after a time of elevated levels it shows a steep decline and then a cooling period, or is it a steep cooling period and then a lowering of CO2?

"Last year will go down in history as the year when the planet’s atmosphere broke a startling record: 400 parts per million of carbon dioxide. The last time the planet’s air was so rich in CO2 was millions of years ago "


Don't know where your 300K number is from, but it's inaccurate.

"the world was a few degrees hotter back then, and melted ice put sea levels tens of meters higher. "

Hope you like beachfront property! (and of course the ensuing fight over resources as you cram billions of humans into 30% less space.)



I should also point out that even a small increase like that will kill off many organisms, which will have a corresponding reaction further up the food chain. That's aside for the impact the loss of land mass will have on many ecosystems. We are already seeing barrier reefs and algie species in trouble and other member of the ecosystem (and by extension humans) rely on them in one way or another.
 

Robertrogue

Posts: 98   +56
So how exactly does age accuracy translate to CO2 inaccuracy? Once again, you are trying to force one topic onto another.




"Last year will go down in history as the year when the planet’s atmosphere broke a startling record: 400 parts per million of carbon dioxide. The last time the planet’s air was so rich in CO2 was millions of years ago "


Don't know where your 300K number is from, but it's inaccurate.

"the world was a few degrees hotter back then, and melted ice put sea levels tens of meters higher. "

Hope you like beachfront property! (and of course the ensuing fight over resources as you cram billions of humans into 30% less space.)



I should also point out that even a small increase like that will kill off many organisms, which will have a corresponding reaction further up the food chain. That's aside for the impact the loss of land mass will have on many ecosystems. We are already seeing barrier reefs and algie species in trouble and other member of the ecosystem (and by extension humans) rely on them in one way or another.
Been hearing this crap for 30 years, I will believe it when I actually see it. So, all the "data" and fear mongering from the "climate" cooks, can go and jump into the "too warm oceans". I am done with this, The earth temps and CO2 levels have always rose and fell by large margins for millions of years, I do believe humans have added to it, however; there is no proof beyond a shadow of a doubt that it is going to cause the end of mankind or earth as a whole. Anyone can put pay to have a study done proving the opposite of anything!! The proof I found on the CO2 levels was at NOAA site and a graph showing the ice core readings for the last 800k years.
 
  • Like
Reactions: clytndn