(almost) everyone agrees with the obvious statistics that the earth has warmed about 1C over the last 120+ years. Of course there were historical periods of warming and cooling which happened in the absence of the industrial revolution.
However, you're not looking at what this tweet & pic are debunking: they're debunking the idea that temperature is directly related to CO2. It's not.
Read what he wrote: in the last 8 years, humanity pumped out 14% of its total historical CO2 emissions. 450+ BILLION tons. And did temperature go up? NO. It went. fucking. down. This isn't a 1 year fluke or glitch in the data, either. It's 8 years. That's a significant enough time to smooth out the data.
There might be a loose correlation, but it is scientifically unproven and just treated as an accepted fact. Global temperatures are a complicated dance of numerous factors, and human CO2 emissions are only a very small factor. Global warming propagandists treat CO2 as a literal proxy for global temperature and devote all their efforts to attacking CO2.
The real reason they attack CO2 is that it very very strongly correlates to human economic development, far moreso than temperature. The real agenda of the "greens" is to slow, stop, and otherwise undermine human economic development, innovation, and advancement. If a "green" technology was invented tomorrow that unlocked massive human economic growth - like let's say cheap fusion power - they'd find some excuse to oppose it with all their might. They love "nature" and hate humans. That's really all there is to it.
yeah virtually all "liblefts" on reddit are watermelons. very very few of them, maybe 5% are actually libleft. their authoritarianism all came out during COVID.
However, you're not looking at what this tweet & pic are debunking: they're debunking the idea that temperature is directly related to CO2. It's not.
That would suggest that CO2 is the only factor. But it's a factor, right? Obviously, temperatures fluctuated long before human output of CO2 had an effect. The question is: is the temperature higher than it would be in the absence of this CO2 output?
Read what he wrote: in the last 8 years, humanity pumped out 14% of its total historical CO2 emissions. 450+ BILLION tons. And did temperature go up? NO. It went. fucking. down. This isn't a 1 year fluke or glitch in the data, either. It's 8 years. That's a significant enough time to smooth out the data.
I'd like more than anyone for all the elites and politicized scientists to be wrong about this. And while I am confident that they will be wrong about their alarmism, that the earth is warming at all due to human activity, probably not.
Although I will guarantee you one thing: the same people who now say "we are not doing enough to SAVE the planet like we saved the whales and try to save the blacks", even if we don't do anything more, will be claiming credit 15 years from now if the earth does not disappear. See! It's because we banned your gas stoves that the planet didn't disappear.
The real agenda of the "greens" is to slow, stop, and otherwise undermine human economic development, innovation, and advancement. If a "green" technology was invented tomorrow that unlocked massive human economic growth - like let's say cheap fusion power - they'd find some excuse to oppose it with all their might.
Eh... nuclear power is already here, and they oppose it. The world is ending, and we should do anything in our power to stop global warming... but not nuclear power.
They love "nature" and hate humans. That's really all there is to it.
That will be true for the low IQ footsoldiers. Higher up, there's obviously more to it.
That would suggest that CO2 is the only factor. But it's a factor, right? Obviously, temperatures fluctuated long before human output of CO2 had an effect. The question is: is the temperature higher than it would be in the absence of this CO2 output?
Yes CO2 plays some small role, but we don't know how much. It could be very small to the point of irrelevance, and the 1C rise of the past 120 years could just be weakly caused by CO2 and more strongly caused by other factors. This is critical to the debate, because of CO2 is only responsible for 5% or even 50% of the temperature rise, then it means the extremely expensive, herculean, anti-development efforts aimed at reducing CO2 emissions are wasteful and stupid. They aren't addressing the root causes and aren't going to make any helpful impact. We have been given explicit promises of doom if we do not ACT NOW to slash CO2 (which is false, a hotter earth is better, not worse), and we have been given explicit promises that if we ACT NOW and slash our CO2 emissions, there will be a huge net benefit in saving the earth. These are all lies. The truth is, that CO2 essentially doesn't matter. It's importance is being grossly exaggerated for ulterior political motives.
This is why global warming propagandists NEED you to believe that CO2 is an evil pollutant that raises the global temperature in a 1:1 correlation. If they told the truth - which is "well, scientists believe that there is some relationship between CO2 and temperature, but correlation is not causation, and the truth is that we simply don't know. we do know that human CO2 emissions are a small fraction of natural process emissions, and that solar activity makes a big difference on temperature, and that there are confounding factors like increased cloud cover reflecting light. every model we have used which held CO2 as a strong cause have turned out to be completely wrong." - you wouldn't be willing to buy a Tesla and ride a bike to work and eat the bugs and vote Democrat.
The science is on the side of the "deniers". The REAL science. But what gets reported on in the press and spewed by liberal politicians? All bullshit pseudo-science. And this bullshit is backed up fully by institutions like academia and NASA and all the others captured by the left wing. They couldn't do otherwise. Actually telling the truth and going against the "consensus" would be cause for immediate excommunication from the Left and canceling.
The web site wattsupwiththat actually compiles and reviews real, published scientific papers and explains how they show - in a language not intended for consumption by the manipulated public - that the science does not in any way support the claims from the global warming propagandists.
I'd like more than anyone for all the elites and politicized scientists to be wrong about this. And while I am confident that they will be wrong about their alarmism, that the earth is warming at all due to human activity, probably not.
Why is it bad if the earth gets a little warmer? Where is the science that proves that warmer = bad? What if the earth in its present state is too cold, and would benefit from a little warming? In fact, there is 0 science supporting any negative effect from warming other than a very very slow sea level rise which we can easily adapt to. The only other big change is the "global greening" as CO2 levels + higher temperatures boost plant growth and make the earth a much nicer place to live at northern latitudes.
Even if human activity has made some contribution, we do not know how much, and the evidence does not support that humans are even the primary cause. It is arrogant hubris for humans to proclaim that the earth's climate is so firmly under our control when it is not. And this means that just as we didn't drive the warming, we cannot stop it, either.
China, India, and Africa give 0 fucks about white liberals whining about mother earth, and the growth in their CO2 emissions DWARFS the cuts made by the West. So there is literally nothing we can do that matters. You think putting solar panels on your roof matters? You think forgoing that vacation matters? You might as well be trying to empty the ocean with a bucket. The US and EU emissions have ALREADY been going down a while. It's meaningless because the rest of the world gives no fucks. Why are you making sacrifices to save pennies while the rest of the world is spending like a drunken sailor with 0 fucks given? Why are you purposely weakening your own country and leaving an opening for enemy nations to surpass us and subjugate us? It's mental illness. A healthy minds accepts what it cannot change.
Although I will guarantee you one thing: the same people who now say "we are not doing enough to SAVE the planet like we saved the whales and try to save the blacks", even if we don't do anything more, will be claiming credit 15 years from now if the earth does not disappear. See! It's because we banned your gas stoves that the planet didn't disappear.
It's a common trick all libtards use. They used it constantly during COVID: (1) problem happens, (2) DO SOMETHING that doesn't help, and actually harms, (3) problem resolves on its own, (4) take credit.
You defeat this grift by being well-informed and intelligent. For example, we know that lockdowns did not work, masking did not work, and vaccines did not stop or even slow the spread of COVID at all. (they did reduce deaths) We know for a fact that lockdowns caused enormous economic harm, for no benefit. These are facts. Too bad most people are too stupid to learn them and most people are happier just being NPCs and being told what to think.
Eh... nuclear power is already here, and they oppose it. The world is ending, and we should do anything in our power to stop global warming... but not nuclear power.
Yes, it is their anti-nuclear stance that is what caused me to believe that the real goal of environmentalists is to curtail human development. If you believe what they say at face value, you would say "nuclear is not perfect, it has its own problems, but there are no perfect solutions, and nuclear is the least-bad option, so we need to embrace it". This isn't what they do. Instead they push wind and solar exclusively because they know that wind and solar don't work (because grid demand doesn't perfectly line up with sunshine & wind). They know batteries aren't a solution. They hate hydro too, because it WORKS.
The only consistency with the environmentalists is that they always want to choose the option that undermines human economic growth and expansion the most, and they push propaganda to that end. They fundamentally hate humans. They look at cities and think they're ugly. They look at a forest and think it's beautiful. They look at people and see evil. They look at animals and see holy purity. It's really just mental illness.
That will be true for the low IQ footsoldiers. Higher up, there's obviously more to it.
The root of the propaganda is a combination of (1) embittered usually marxist intellectuals who hate industrialists, developers, and capitalism, using environmentalism as a weapon against their hate objects, plus (2) their allies, the capitalist green grifters, who are looking to suck the government taxpayer teat for subsidies to enrich themselves in the "green" economy, plus (3) academics who gets huge government research grants and want to enrich themselves with climate "science" grifting.
vaccines did not stop or even slow the spread of COVID at all. (they did reduce deaths)
We don’t even know this. They were using the “two week” rule to record vaccinated deaths as unvaccinated deaths. Pfizer blew up their own double blind study after three months, which we now know to be the timeframe for the vaccine efficacy going negative. And they barely report deaths anymore because a) most deaths are vaccinated and b) excess deaths track with the introduction of vaccines, not the appearance of covid. They’ve successfully muddied the waters to a point where no one knows anything. That’s not something they would do to harm public perception of the vax. It was a defensive gambit to cover up a disaster.
Yes CO2 plays some small role, but we don't know how much.
I think a lot of people pretend they know, in order to get more grants and push their agenda.
Ironically, just yesterday I was watching a lecture by an eminent professor of political theory who said that climate 'scientists' were no longer communicating by e-mail, because they feared 'government surveillance' - though I think it has more to do with the East Anglia hacks.
This is critical to the debate, because of CO2 is only responsible for 5% or even 50% of the temperature rise, then it means the extremely expensive, herculean, anti-development efforts aimed at reducing CO2 emissions are wasteful and stupid.
I would say that even if CO2 is responsible for 100%, all this nonsense would be very stupid. It would just shift the balance a bit on how cost-effective gas-powered power plants are vs. nuclear power plants.
I'll just add that while I know very little of this subject, I can see that CO2 may be responsible for 150% of the current temperature rise. Suppose other factors resulted in the temperature falling, but CO2 made up for all of that and then some.
If they told the truth - which is "well, scientists believe that there is some relationship between CO2 and temperature, but correlation is not causation, and the truth is that we simply don't know. we do know that human CO2 emissions are a small fraction of natural process emissions, and that solar activity makes a big difference on temperature, and that there are confounding factors like increased cloud cover reflecting light. every model we have used which held CO2 as a strong cause have turned out to be completely wrong." - you wouldn't be willing to buy a Tesla and ride a bike to work and eat the bugs and vote Democrat.
I'm not willing to eat the bugs regardless of anything.
Historically CO2 rises AFTER temperature, not before
As in my original post, I'll have to point out that even as you (rightly) disbelieve the MSM, it doesn't mean that you should automatically believe sources that tell you what you want to believe.
Why is it bad if the earth gets a little warmer? Where is the science that proves that warmer = bad?
It isn't. Historically, it has been pretty good, as in the Medieval Optimum - at least in Europe. That said, when you have 9 billion people adjusted to current temperatures, it wouldn't be great if there was an average temperature increase of 3 degrees C, particularly as it is more extreme on the extremes.
For me, it's great, because my little corner of hell is slightly less cold (though not in the beginning of December).
China, India, and Africa give 0 fucks about white liberals whining about mother earth
Unless they are paid off. And rightly so.
and the growth in their CO2 emissions DWARFS the cuts made by the West. So there is literally nothing we can do that matters. You think putting solar panels on your roof matters? You think forgoing that vacation matters? You might as well be trying to empty the ocean with a bucket.
I've told this to cultists many times. Doesn't work. It's a religion to them. Cutting carbon emissions is like saying 'hail Mary', though I wouldn't want to disrespect a religion that did some actual good in the world.
It's a common trick all libtards use. They used it constantly during COVID: (1) problem happens, (2) DO SOMETHING that doesn't help, and actually harms, (3) problem resolves on its own, (4) take credit.
It's as old as time. Sowell describers how they did the same thing with 'sex education', which created the problem of teenage pregnancies, which then becomes a reason for more 'sex education', because... only a genius does the same thing that hasn't worked while expecting a different result.
Too bad most people are too stupid to learn them and most people are happier just being NPCs and being told what to think.
I don't know what to do about it.
If you believe what they say at face value, you would say "nuclear is not perfect, it has its own problems, but there are no perfect solutions, and nuclear is the least-bad option, so we need to embrace it".
LOL! You make better arguments for envirocultists than they do.
This isn't what they do. Instead they push wind and solar exclusively because they know that wind and solar don't work (because grid demand doesn't perfectly line up with sunshine & wind). They know batteries aren't a solution. They hate hydro too, because it WORKS.
I can guarantee you that when the grid starts failing because of all the wind and solar, they'll blame it on Vladimir Putin or on fossil fuels, and say that this is all the more reason to move more quickly to 'renewables' more quickly. I like to think that people will be smart enough to catch up on this, but looking around, people just believe regime propaganda without question.
They look at cities and think they're ugly. They look at a forest and think it's beautiful.
And so do I. But that is no reason to destroy the city. Well, except if it's Baltimore (pls no bully NSA, it's a joke).
The root of the propaganda is a combination of (1) embittered usually marxist intellectuals who hate industrialists, developers, and capitalism, using environmentalism as a weapon against their hate objects, plus (2) their allies, the capitalist green grifters, who are looking to suck the government taxpayer teat for subsidies to enrich themselves in the "green" economy, plus (3) academics who gets huge government research grants and want to enrich themselves with climate "science" grifting.
I seldom agree with you completely. But here I have to.
This isn't a 1 year fluke or glitch in the data, either. It's 8 years. That's a significant enough time to smooth out the data.
There was a 20 year period between about 1945 and 1970 where surface temperatures didn't rise, yet you admit that it's "obvious" the earth has been warming over the last century.
This what justification looks like, you want 8 years to be enough time to prove you're right yet without realizing it you've already conceded that 20 years isn't enough time.
You have some good points, but your defective reasoning leads you to wrong views like a gas that takes hundreds of years to build up heat should show an effect immediately, plants loving extreme heat, plants being limited by CO2 (they're mostly limited by sun, water, and nutrients like nitrogen and potassium), and so on.
Stop trying to justify your beliefs, stick to the facts, and you'll make much better arguments.
(almost) everyone agrees with the obvious statistics that the earth has warmed about 1C over the last 120+ years. Of course there were historical periods of warming and cooling which happened in the absence of the industrial revolution.
However, you're not looking at what this tweet & pic are debunking: they're debunking the idea that temperature is directly related to CO2. It's not.
Read what he wrote: in the last 8 years, humanity pumped out 14% of its total historical CO2 emissions. 450+ BILLION tons. And did temperature go up? NO. It went. fucking. down. This isn't a 1 year fluke or glitch in the data, either. It's 8 years. That's a significant enough time to smooth out the data.
There might be a loose correlation, but it is scientifically unproven and just treated as an accepted fact. Global temperatures are a complicated dance of numerous factors, and human CO2 emissions are only a very small factor. Global warming propagandists treat CO2 as a literal proxy for global temperature and devote all their efforts to attacking CO2.
The real reason they attack CO2 is that it very very strongly correlates to human economic development, far moreso than temperature. The real agenda of the "greens" is to slow, stop, and otherwise undermine human economic development, innovation, and advancement. If a "green" technology was invented tomorrow that unlocked massive human economic growth - like let's say cheap fusion power - they'd find some excuse to oppose it with all their might. They love "nature" and hate humans. That's really all there is to it.
They're watermelons. Green on the outside and red on the inside.
yeah virtually all "liblefts" on reddit are watermelons. very very few of them, maybe 5% are actually libleft. their authoritarianism all came out during COVID.
That would suggest that CO2 is the only factor. But it's a factor, right? Obviously, temperatures fluctuated long before human output of CO2 had an effect. The question is: is the temperature higher than it would be in the absence of this CO2 output?
I'd like more than anyone for all the elites and politicized scientists to be wrong about this. And while I am confident that they will be wrong about their alarmism, that the earth is warming at all due to human activity, probably not.
Although I will guarantee you one thing: the same people who now say "we are not doing enough to SAVE the planet like we saved the whales and try to save the blacks", even if we don't do anything more, will be claiming credit 15 years from now if the earth does not disappear. See! It's because we banned your gas stoves that the planet didn't disappear.
Eh... nuclear power is already here, and they oppose it. The world is ending, and we should do anything in our power to stop global warming... but not nuclear power.
That will be true for the low IQ footsoldiers. Higher up, there's obviously more to it.
Yes CO2 plays some small role, but we don't know how much. It could be very small to the point of irrelevance, and the 1C rise of the past 120 years could just be weakly caused by CO2 and more strongly caused by other factors. This is critical to the debate, because of CO2 is only responsible for 5% or even 50% of the temperature rise, then it means the extremely expensive, herculean, anti-development efforts aimed at reducing CO2 emissions are wasteful and stupid. They aren't addressing the root causes and aren't going to make any helpful impact. We have been given explicit promises of doom if we do not ACT NOW to slash CO2 (which is false, a hotter earth is better, not worse), and we have been given explicit promises that if we ACT NOW and slash our CO2 emissions, there will be a huge net benefit in saving the earth. These are all lies. The truth is, that CO2 essentially doesn't matter. It's importance is being grossly exaggerated for ulterior political motives.
This is why global warming propagandists NEED you to believe that CO2 is an evil pollutant that raises the global temperature in a 1:1 correlation. If they told the truth - which is "well, scientists believe that there is some relationship between CO2 and temperature, but correlation is not causation, and the truth is that we simply don't know. we do know that human CO2 emissions are a small fraction of natural process emissions, and that solar activity makes a big difference on temperature, and that there are confounding factors like increased cloud cover reflecting light. every model we have used which held CO2 as a strong cause have turned out to be completely wrong." - you wouldn't be willing to buy a Tesla and ride a bike to work and eat the bugs and vote Democrat.
Historically CO2 rises AFTER temperature, not before
It is well accepted by science that CO2's impact on temperature drops exponentially as its concentration increases This means CO2 has a big impact at very low levels, but this effect quickly drops. So the truth is that present levels might make little to no difference when you consider the "noise" of many other factors.
Nearly 140 Scientific Papers Detail The Minuscule Effect CO2 Has On Earth’s Temperature
The science is on the side of the "deniers". The REAL science. But what gets reported on in the press and spewed by liberal politicians? All bullshit pseudo-science. And this bullshit is backed up fully by institutions like academia and NASA and all the others captured by the left wing. They couldn't do otherwise. Actually telling the truth and going against the "consensus" would be cause for immediate excommunication from the Left and canceling.
The web site wattsupwiththat actually compiles and reviews real, published scientific papers and explains how they show - in a language not intended for consumption by the manipulated public - that the science does not in any way support the claims from the global warming propagandists.
Why is it bad if the earth gets a little warmer? Where is the science that proves that warmer = bad? What if the earth in its present state is too cold, and would benefit from a little warming? In fact, there is 0 science supporting any negative effect from warming other than a very very slow sea level rise which we can easily adapt to. The only other big change is the "global greening" as CO2 levels + higher temperatures boost plant growth and make the earth a much nicer place to live at northern latitudes.
Even if human activity has made some contribution, we do not know how much, and the evidence does not support that humans are even the primary cause. It is arrogant hubris for humans to proclaim that the earth's climate is so firmly under our control when it is not. And this means that just as we didn't drive the warming, we cannot stop it, either.
China, India, and Africa give 0 fucks about white liberals whining about mother earth, and the growth in their CO2 emissions DWARFS the cuts made by the West. So there is literally nothing we can do that matters. You think putting solar panels on your roof matters? You think forgoing that vacation matters? You might as well be trying to empty the ocean with a bucket. The US and EU emissions have ALREADY been going down a while. It's meaningless because the rest of the world gives no fucks. Why are you making sacrifices to save pennies while the rest of the world is spending like a drunken sailor with 0 fucks given? Why are you purposely weakening your own country and leaving an opening for enemy nations to surpass us and subjugate us? It's mental illness. A healthy minds accepts what it cannot change.
It's a common trick all libtards use. They used it constantly during COVID: (1) problem happens, (2) DO SOMETHING that doesn't help, and actually harms, (3) problem resolves on its own, (4) take credit.
You defeat this grift by being well-informed and intelligent. For example, we know that lockdowns did not work, masking did not work, and vaccines did not stop or even slow the spread of COVID at all. (they did reduce deaths) We know for a fact that lockdowns caused enormous economic harm, for no benefit. These are facts. Too bad most people are too stupid to learn them and most people are happier just being NPCs and being told what to think.
Yes, it is their anti-nuclear stance that is what caused me to believe that the real goal of environmentalists is to curtail human development. If you believe what they say at face value, you would say "nuclear is not perfect, it has its own problems, but there are no perfect solutions, and nuclear is the least-bad option, so we need to embrace it". This isn't what they do. Instead they push wind and solar exclusively because they know that wind and solar don't work (because grid demand doesn't perfectly line up with sunshine & wind). They know batteries aren't a solution. They hate hydro too, because it WORKS.
The only consistency with the environmentalists is that they always want to choose the option that undermines human economic growth and expansion the most, and they push propaganda to that end. They fundamentally hate humans. They look at cities and think they're ugly. They look at a forest and think it's beautiful. They look at people and see evil. They look at animals and see holy purity. It's really just mental illness.
The root of the propaganda is a combination of (1) embittered usually marxist intellectuals who hate industrialists, developers, and capitalism, using environmentalism as a weapon against their hate objects, plus (2) their allies, the capitalist green grifters, who are looking to suck the government taxpayer teat for subsidies to enrich themselves in the "green" economy, plus (3) academics who gets huge government research grants and want to enrich themselves with climate "science" grifting.
We don’t even know this. They were using the “two week” rule to record vaccinated deaths as unvaccinated deaths. Pfizer blew up their own double blind study after three months, which we now know to be the timeframe for the vaccine efficacy going negative. And they barely report deaths anymore because a) most deaths are vaccinated and b) excess deaths track with the introduction of vaccines, not the appearance of covid. They’ve successfully muddied the waters to a point where no one knows anything. That’s not something they would do to harm public perception of the vax. It was a defensive gambit to cover up a disaster.
I think a lot of people pretend they know, in order to get more grants and push their agenda.
Ironically, just yesterday I was watching a lecture by an eminent professor of political theory who said that climate 'scientists' were no longer communicating by e-mail, because they feared 'government surveillance' - though I think it has more to do with the East Anglia hacks.
I would say that even if CO2 is responsible for 100%, all this nonsense would be very stupid. It would just shift the balance a bit on how cost-effective gas-powered power plants are vs. nuclear power plants.
I'll just add that while I know very little of this subject, I can see that CO2 may be responsible for 150% of the current temperature rise. Suppose other factors resulted in the temperature falling, but CO2 made up for all of that and then some.
I'm not willing to eat the bugs regardless of anything.
As in my original post, I'll have to point out that even as you (rightly) disbelieve the MSM, it doesn't mean that you should automatically believe sources that tell you what you want to believe.
It isn't. Historically, it has been pretty good, as in the Medieval Optimum - at least in Europe. That said, when you have 9 billion people adjusted to current temperatures, it wouldn't be great if there was an average temperature increase of 3 degrees C, particularly as it is more extreme on the extremes.
For me, it's great, because my little corner of hell is slightly less cold (though not in the beginning of December).
Unless they are paid off. And rightly so.
I've told this to cultists many times. Doesn't work. It's a religion to them. Cutting carbon emissions is like saying 'hail Mary', though I wouldn't want to disrespect a religion that did some actual good in the world.
It's as old as time. Sowell describers how they did the same thing with 'sex education', which created the problem of teenage pregnancies, which then becomes a reason for more 'sex education', because... only a genius does the same thing that hasn't worked while expecting a different result.
I don't know what to do about it.
LOL! You make better arguments for envirocultists than they do.
I can guarantee you that when the grid starts failing because of all the wind and solar, they'll blame it on Vladimir Putin or on fossil fuels, and say that this is all the more reason to move more quickly to 'renewables' more quickly. I like to think that people will be smart enough to catch up on this, but looking around, people just believe regime propaganda without question.
And so do I. But that is no reason to destroy the city. Well, except if it's Baltimore (pls no bully NSA, it's a joke).
I seldom agree with you completely. But here I have to.
There was a 20 year period between about 1945 and 1970 where surface temperatures didn't rise, yet you admit that it's "obvious" the earth has been warming over the last century.
This what justification looks like, you want 8 years to be enough time to prove you're right yet without realizing it you've already conceded that 20 years isn't enough time.
You have some good points, but your defective reasoning leads you to wrong views like a gas that takes hundreds of years to build up heat should show an effect immediately, plants loving extreme heat, plants being limited by CO2 (they're mostly limited by sun, water, and nutrients like nitrogen and potassium), and so on.
Stop trying to justify your beliefs, stick to the facts, and you'll make much better arguments.