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

Robertrogue

Posts: 92   +47
The death numbers (4.2 million & 3.8 million) I used here, are the latest number.
The video used old numbers.
4.6 million people

The World Health Organization estimates that 4.6 million people die each year from causes directly attributable to air pollution. Many of these moralities are attributable to indoor air pollution. Worldwide more deaths per year are linked to air pollution than to automobile accidents.

Air pollution - ScienceDaily

This is the first thing on google. So, there again, the numbers for outdoor air pollution are less, and most of them is common issues that may be exasperated due to air pollution, that is a bit of a stretch to associate most with air pollution.
 
  • Like
Reactions: clytndn

Robertrogue

Posts: 92   +47
The death numbers (4.2 million & 3.8 million) I used here, are the latest numbers.
The video used old numbers.
Even the WHO website says "An estimated seven million" then show numbers that equal 8 million. Also, their estimations are biased to show pollution caused the deaths, they attribute several chronic things that can be caused by other factors than air pollution, but then point to the air pollution as the culprit.
 
  • Like
Reactions: clytndn

pit1209

Posts: 106   +155
Even the WHO website says "An estimated seven million" then show numbers that equal 8 million. Also, their estimations are biased to show pollution caused the deaths, they attribute several chronic things that can be caused by other factors than air pollution, but then point to the air pollution as the culprit.
Looks like there is always someone like this in every topic, the other day was from the "e-cigarettes are safe" front.

I really don't understand what's your agenda on this topic, I mean what's even the point on NASA or any scientific community for that matter to lie about the cause of this obvious problem? this just reminds me how there were "scientific" proven studies discarding cigarette smoke as a cause of cancer. Maybe when we are in a point where there's nothing left then the people like you will believe all the facts literally in front of them.
 

Robertrogue

Posts: 92   +47
Looks like there is always someone like this in every topic, the other day was from the "e-cigarettes are safe" front.

I really don't understand what's your agenda on this topic, I mean what's even the point on NASA or any scientific community for that matter to lie about the cause of this obvious problem? this just reminds me how there were "scientific" proven studies discarding cigarette smoke as a cause of cancer. Maybe when we are in a point where there's nothing left then the people like you will believe all the facts literally in front of them.
Well, like I said before, there is a study to disprove any study. However; for the last 30 years the global warming kooks have been talking of end days and mass extinction, first it was the 90's, then by 2012, then 2020. They keep moving the line, all I am saying is it appears to us that there is no "proven" fact that humans are the sole contributor to CO2 levels, and that even if all human provided CO2 levels are zeroed out or even moved to negative, the earth levels would keep rising until they stop, and then history has proved, they drop down and temps drop. It just amazes me when the words "estimate" and "soon" are put into "facts", sorry, those words don't go together.
 
  • Like
Reactions: clytndn

koblongata

Posts: 297   +100
Even the WHO website says "An estimated seven million" then show numbers that equal 8 million. Also, their estimations are biased to show pollution caused the deaths, they attribute several chronic things that can be caused by other factors than air pollution, but then point to the air pollution as the culprit.
NO, PM2.5 is a serious problem, it "can penetrate deeply into the lung, irritate and corrode the alveolar wall". And PM2.5 pollution consists of countless of different toxins, many are cancer causing.

This is why pneumonia, lung cancer, heart diseases, stroke are the top causes of death.
 

Evernessince

Posts: 4,973   +5,071
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.
The earth's natural carbon cycle and natural variations in temperature were already taken into consideration in the links I posted above.

If these changes were occurring over millions of years then yes, that would be natural. No, we are seeing changes that would typically take the earth millions of years happen over the course of 280 years. Enough said.
 

Robertrogue

Posts: 92   +47
NO, PM2.5 is a serious problem, it "can penetrate deeply into the lung, irritate and corrode the alveolar wall". And PM2.5 pollution consists of countless of different toxins, many are cancer causing.

This is why pneumonia, lung cancer, heart diseases, stroke are the top causes of death.
Well, heart disease is not from air pollution, pneumonia is not from outdoor air pollution. Strokes are from blood clots. The PM2.5 may be an issue, but not THE issue. Heart disease is the leading cause of death in the world,, rich or poor alike. Mostly from a bad diet and lack of exercise.
 
  • Like
Reactions: clytndn and pit1209

Larsenex

Posts: 90   +8
"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.
Complete falsehood.
NASA is partisan on this issue.
The greenhouse "effect" has also been discredited.
CO2 is a normal property of our atmosphere. Water vapor is the real culprit for heat retention.
Overall, I am not concerned the climate alarmism. You dont remember the predictions of the 70s. Do you remeber what was said?
 
  • Like
Reactions: clytndn

Fox God Records

Posts: 16   +8
Riiiight... Trump is a bot account... good one.... jfc...
That's not what was said. What was said is that Trump™ is an idi-ot* who spreads the bot-based disinformation because he's an idi-ot. Trump™ is what is known as "A Useful Idi-ot." In case I wasn't clear enough, Donald J. Trump™ is an idi-ot and he believes idi-otic things. Trump™ believes idi-otic things that are not believable. Trump™ then spreads his idi-otic beliefs to other idi-ots who also believe idi-otic things. Those idi-ots, having absorbed the idi-otic ramblings of Trump™, then continue the spread of the idi-ocy by telling other idi-ots who also believe idi-otic things. It's kind of like an idi-ocy virus, spreading from unvaccinated idi-ot to unvaccinated idi-ot. This is why vaccinating children against idi-ocy is so important. If you don't vaccinate your children, they grow up to believe idi-otic crap spewed by the least qualified person to ever become**+ President of the United States.

* Hyphenation of ***** (idi-ot) is required to bypass the censor
** Lost the popular vote by 3 million votes +/-
+ Impeached
 
Last edited:

pit1209

Posts: 106   +155
Complete falsehood.
NASA is partisan on this issue.
The greenhouse "effect" has also been discredited.
CO2 is a normal property of our atmosphere. Water vapor is the real culprit for heat retention.
Overall, I am not concerned the climate alarmism. You dont remember the predictions of the 70s. Do you remeber what was said?
Greenhouse gases are those that absorb and emit infrared radiation in the wavelength range emitted by Earth.


You're getting confuse with CO (Carbon Monoxide) that as a diatomic particle it has no infrared absorption capacity. You're not concerned because it is obvious you haven't educated yourself enough about the topic, the same as Robertrogue.

.
 

Evernessince

Posts: 4,973   +5,071
The greenhouse "effect" has also been discredited.
"The atmosphere of Venus consists of 96% carbon dioxide, 3.5% nitrogen, with the remaining amount, less than 1%, other gases. The carbon dioxide atmosphere has allowed the temperature of the surface to exceed 900°F (482°C) "


There are literally dozen of simple experiments you can run to test this out for yourself. Go get yourself two temperature sensors, two bottles, a heat lamp, and a alka-seltzer for CO2. Put two tablets of seltzer in one bottle, let sit for an hour under the lamp with the temp probes installed and the cap on.
 

koblongata

Posts: 297   +100
Well, heart disease is not from air pollution, pneumonia is not from outdoor air pollution. Strokes are from blood clots. The PM2.5 may be an issue, but not THE issue. Heart disease is the leading cause of death in the world,, rich or poor alike. Mostly from a bad diet and lack of exercise.
"Acute short-term effects of air pollution tend to strike people who are elderly or already struggling with heart disease, said Dr. Luepker, who is also an epidemiologist.

For instance, someone with atherosclerosis, or build up of fatty deposits on the inner lining of the arteries, experiences immediate trouble when pollutants play a role in causing plaque in a blood vessel to rupture, triggering a heart attack.

“This kind of pushes them over the cliff,” Dr. Luepker said.

Studies have shown increases in deaths and hospitalizations when there are high concentrations of smog in Los Angeles, and research indicates this happens in other countries, too, Dr. Luepker said.

Pollution is also believed to have inflammatory effects on the heart, causing chronic cardiovascular problems.

Medical researchers are particularly concerned about pollution particles smaller than 2.5 microns, which are usually related to fuel combustion. Because they are so tiny, they aren’t easily screened and more readily enter the human body. They then begin to irritate the lungs and blood vessels around the heart. Data suggest that over time pollutants aggravate or increase the process of disease in the arteries. "

-https://www.heart.org/en/health-topics/consumer-healthcare/what-is-cardiovascular-disease/air-pollution-and-heart-disease-stroke
 

fadingfool

Posts: 142   +145
"The atmosphere of Venus consists of 96% carbon dioxide, 3.5% nitrogen, with the remaining amount, less than 1%, other gases. The carbon dioxide atmosphere has allowed the temperature of the surface to exceed 900°F (482°C) "


There are literally dozen of simple experiments you can run to test this out for yourself. Go get yourself two temperature sensors, two bottles, a heat lamp, and a alka-seltzer for CO2. Put two tablets of seltzer in one bottle, let sit for an hour under the lamp with the temp probes installed and the cap on.
[Cough] at 1 atmosphere pressure (so still some altitude from the surface) Venus's temperature profile is as expected for a body that much closer to the sun. Venus's high temperature is more to do with it's high pressure/thick atmosphere - it's kind of lacking Oceans of H2O as well. [/cough] Venus has also been experiencing global warming in the same time frame as the earth.......
 

Evernessince

Posts: 4,973   +5,071
[Cough] at 1 atmosphere pressure (so still some altitude from the surface) Venus's temperature profile is as expected for a body that much closer to the sun. Venus's high temperature is more to do with it's high pressure/thick atmosphere - it's kind of lacking Oceans of H2O as well. [/cough] Venus has also been experiencing global warming in the same time frame as the earth.......
1. Mercury is closer and experiences lower temperatures

2. Yes Venus's atmosphere is more dense because CO2 has a much higher mass than typical earth air. It's density is part of the reason why it's good at absorbing energy. So by saying that Venus's temperatures are higher due to the density, you are extension saying it's due to the CO2 and thus experiencing the greenhouse effect.

But ya know, that's literally what you could have found out anywhere on the internet on either space or climate change websites with a 3 second google search: http://coolcosmos.ipac.caltech.edu/ask/38-Why-is-Venus-so-hot-
 
  • Like
Reactions: pit1209

pit1209

Posts: 106   +155
1. Mercury is closer and experiences lower temperatures

2. Yes Venus's atmosphere is more dense because CO2 has a much higher mass than typical earth air. It's density is part of the reason why it's good at absorbing energy. So by saying that Venus's temperatures are higher due to the density, you are extension saying it's due to the CO2 and thus experiencing the greenhouse effect.

But ya know, that's literally what you could have found out anywhere on the internet on either space or climate change websites with a 3 second google search: http://coolcosmos.ipac.caltech.edu/ask/38-Why-is-Venus-so-hot-
I always like to think that if Venus wouldn't have been turn into hell due to that issue it probably would have been the other planet with life in the Solar System and we certainly would have progressed to interplanetary travels by now.
 

fadingfool

Posts: 142   +145
1. Mercury is closer and experiences lower temperatures

2. Yes Venus's atmosphere is more dense because CO2 has a much higher mass than typical earth air. It's density is part of the reason why it's good at absorbing energy. So by saying that Venus's temperatures are higher due to the density, you are extension saying it's due to the CO2 and thus experiencing the greenhouse effect.

But ya know, that's literally what you could have found out anywhere on the internet on either space or climate change websites with a 3 second google search: http://coolcosmos.ipac.caltech.edu/ask/38-Why-is-Venus-so-hot-
It is not "run away" greenhouse effect as the temperature profile at 1 atmosphere shows (that and no evidence of H2O ever on Venus - just some random theories - so nothing to runaway with). It is so very earth-like at this altitude that it has been proposed that colonisation is possible (https://archive.is/20120711103532/http://link.aip.org/link/?APCPCS/654/1193/1)

Under Gay-Lussac's Law the temperature is higher at the surface - it doesn't need a run-away green house effect to explain this. The other nail in the coffin for the theory of run away greenhouse effect is Albedo. The Sulfuric acid clouds reflect most of the sunlight because Venus' albedo is by far the highest of all planetary bodies in the Solar System at 0.90 - this means there is a lot less energy arriving at the surface for the GHG to play with.
The run-away greenhouse effect on Venus is a "may" have happened.
 

Evernessince

Posts: 4,973   +5,071
It is not "run away" greenhouse effect as the temperature profile at 1 atmosphere shows (that and no evidence of H2O ever on Venus - just some random theories - so nothing to runaway with). It is so very earth-like at this altitude that it has been proposed that colonisation is possible (https://archive.is/20120711103532/http://link.aip.org/link/?APCPCS/654/1193/1)

Under Gay-Lussac's Law the temperature is higher at the surface - it doesn't need a run-away green house effect to explain this. The other nail in the coffin for the theory of run away greenhouse effect is Albedo. The Sulfuric acid clouds reflect most of the sunlight because Venus' albedo is by far the highest of all planetary bodies in the Solar System at 0.90 - this means there is a lot less energy arriving at the surface for the GHG to play with.
The run-away greenhouse effect on Venus is a "may" have happened.
It's printed in text books, on educational websites (like NASA's website), and other learning resources.



"The Sulfuric acid clouds reflect most of the sunlight because Venus' albedo is by far the highest of all planetary bodies in the Solar System at 0.90 - this means there is a lot less energy arriving at the surface for the GHG to play with.
The run-away greenhouse effect on Venus is a "may" have happened."

Not at all in fact as greenhouse models already factor in clouds as shown in the link above. In fact Venus is the planet scientist use as a test bed for climate models as it is ideal. Those climate models of which have been very accurate to date, especially considering how much more complex the earth's climate is.

FYI one does not put a nail in the coffin of a theory with a simple comment on techspot. Despite the name, in order for something to become a theory it has to be peer-reviewed, tested, and proven as a working model many times. The basis of modern sciences is mostly on theories. Science is never 100%, it's always quantifiable. That's because a scientist knows there is always room for error in any theory and an open mind would be abject to bereft itself from the possibility of being wrong. For in fact, any person who speaks in absolutes is not a scientist but a fool.
 
Last edited:

fadingfool

Posts: 142   +145
Rofl "In fact Venus is the planet scientist use as a test bed for climate models as it is ideal. Those climate models of which have been very accurate to date, "
Obviously you have a strange view of the word accurate. Are those the same models that when tested against reality (https://sci.esa.int/web/venus-expre...eriment-sheds-light-on-venus-polar-atmosphere) got the temperature at the poles wrong by 70 degrees?
The GCMs do not "factor in clouds" they parameterise them out as they are too complex for the models - and frequently get the sign of the parameter incorrect.
There is little to no evidence of runaway green house effect on Venus as there is little to no evidence that liquid water ever existed on Venus. You do put nails in coffins of theories - mathematics advances with proofs, science advances with disproofs.
 

Evernessince

Posts: 4,973   +5,071
Rofl "In fact Venus is the planet scientist use as a test bed for climate models as it is ideal. Those climate models of which have been very accurate to date, "
Obviously you have a strange view of the word accurate. Are those the same models that when tested against reality (https://sci.esa.int/web/venus-expre...eriment-sheds-light-on-venus-polar-atmosphere) got the temperature at the poles wrong by 70 degrees?
The GCMs do not "factor in clouds" they parameterise them out as they are too complex for the models - and frequently get the sign of the parameter incorrect.
There is little to no evidence of runaway green house effect on Venus as there is little to no evidence that liquid water ever existed on Venus. You do put nails in coffins of theories - mathematics advances with proofs, science advances with disproofs.
1. "These lower densities could be at least partly due to Venus' polar vortices, which are strong wind systems sitting near the planet's poles. "

2. That's on Venus, which like I said earlier is a test bed. I should not have to explain what a test bed is.

Next time try reading the article instead of cherry picking a single number without context.