Libtards are really bad at logic. [750x1072 - 120KB]

(post is archived)

You are currently inside a comment thread.

Click here to see all the comments (112).

[–] • 0 pt

Once again. Co2 is a shitty absorber of heat.

Put it in a test chamber alone and hey you skewed science and can pretend it's a good heat trap. But in the real world atmosphere co2 is a non factor As a heat trap.

I tried to understand the science of co2 but it's really complicated. Calling it a catalyst is a fair pleb description. Co2 increases the likelihood of a cosmic ray being trapped by other gases.

Co2 is also a reducing gas. It is used by many processes and the greater the concentration the greater the usage rate.

Self balancing system comprising many variables ignored by scientisms.

You do understand that we cannot live without co2?

If muh climate change due to co2 hypothesis was founded in science then predictions these last fifty years would of had value. They didnt. Insane to keep making the same guesses then acting as if they will come true.

And climate change alarmism is actually a political program with zero intent and zero means and zero evidence to act to stagnate the global climate.

Meaning your faith in CCA is baseless and religious by nature.

Disagree? Provide peer review evidence that politicians can stagnate global climate by stopping humans producing co2.

So what is the game plan behind CCA? Cause poverty. Check. But not uniformly right? Cause fear. Cause extinction of human societies. Just not uniformly right? Transfer huge wealth to the nongentiles with a cut sent to pet scientisms. Enough to fund another round of alarmism.

My premise is simple. The idea that our climate is fragile is complete fear mongering bullshit. The idea that co2 leads climate changes is bullshit. The idea that a little change in co2 has a big impact on climate is bullshit. The idea of human activity being unnatural is speciest with zero value. Finally the very idea of change being bad is utterly moronic. And now we have massive evidence that the rate of change claimed isn't drastic at all. Meaning should sea levels actually start to rise 100 years after the "fact" we can adjust.

Also note that CCA is hiding real concerns. Islanders are saying that sea levels are drowning islands but the hidden truth is over population and deforestation is causing islands to sink through erosion. (but then islanders would have no one to blame and therefor extort)

So where do you stand on this?

Once again. Co2 is a shitty absorber of heat. Put it in a test chamber alone and hey you skewed science and can pretend it's a good heat trap. But in the real world atmosphere co2 is a non factor As a heat trap. I tried to understand the science of co2 but it's really complicated. Calling it a catalyst is a fair pleb description. Co2 increases the likelihood of a cosmic ray being trapped by other gases. Co2 is also a reducing gas. It is used by many processes and the greater the concentration the greater the usage rate. Self balancing system comprising many variables ignored by scientisms. You do understand that we cannot live without co2? If muh climate change due to co2 hypothesis was founded in science then predictions these last fifty years would of had value. They didnt. Insane to keep making the same guesses then acting as if they will come true. And climate change alarmism is actually a political program with zero intent and zero means and zero evidence to act to stagnate the global climate. Meaning your faith in CCA is baseless and religious by nature. Disagree? Provide peer review evidence that politicians can stagnate global climate by stopping humans producing co2. So what is the game plan behind CCA? Cause poverty. Check. But not uniformly right? Cause fear. Cause extinction of human societies. Just not uniformly right? Transfer huge wealth to the nongentiles with a cut sent to pet scientisms. Enough to fund another round of alarmism. My premise is simple. The idea that our climate is fragile is complete fear mongering bullshit. The idea that co2 leads climate changes is bullshit. The idea that a little change in co2 has a big impact on climate is bullshit. The idea of human activity being unnatural is speciest with zero value. Finally the very idea of change being bad is utterly moronic. And now we have massive evidence that the rate of change claimed isn't drastic at all. Meaning should sea levels actually start to rise 100 years after the "fact" we can adjust. Also note that CCA is hiding real concerns. Islanders are saying that sea levels are drowning islands but the hidden truth is over population and deforestation is causing islands to sink through erosion. (but then islanders would have no one to blame and therefor extort) So where do you stand on this?

parent
link

[–] • 0 pt

Co2 is a shitty absorber of heat.

everything I can find says the opposite

Put it in a test chamber alone and hey you skewed science and can pretend it's a good heat trap. But in the real world atmosphere co2 is a non factor As a heat trap.

So what changes in the real world vs lab?

You do understand that we cannot live without co2?

not sure how that's relevant? nobody is capable of removing it

If muh climate change due to co2 hypothesis was founded in science then predictions these last fifty years would of had value

you could say the same about black holes, gravity waves and bigbang theories, but none of those are a likely threat

And climate change alarmism is actually a political program with zero intent and zero means and zero evidence to act to stagnate the global climate

Provide peer review evidence that politicians can stagnate global climate by stopping humans producing co2

well it won't, reducing methane will, CO2 is a long term goal

So what is the game plan behind CCA?

Say we have a problem with dumping pollutants in the sea but your favourite politician owns Acme Poison Corp, are we all supposed to ignore the problem because you've made it political now?

The idea of human activity being unnatural is speciest with zero value.

literally every upward tick in CO2, Methane, heat levels, sea levels, coral dying etc starts at the beginning of the industrial revolution, absolutely fuck all was happening before that time. Doesn't that seem even slightly suspicious to you?

Islanders are saying that sea levels are drowning islands

sea levels are rising though? https://www.realclimate.org/images/Kemp_sealevel_20111.png look at when it starts rising...

So where do you stand on this?

I can see within my own lifetime that the environment is way shittier than it was, the weather has become really erratic and hotter, and I can't remember the last time I made a snowball. I can look at any graph and point at the period when it all started, and it's always around 1800. Humans are doing "something" here.

I don't care if that's farting more, driving more, feeding niggers, or eating avocados instead of turnips. I've also noticed we have way more autistic kids now, and kids with asthma. We are doing something wrong.

I don't give a fuck if this is a Left wing plot, the jews did it, or trannies are melting the icecaps with disco music, we should come together and rewind everything we have been doing in the last 100 years. Better still if we can make some intelligent guesses as to exactly what we are doing wrong and fix that first.

If the majority of scientists point at fossil fuels then fine, we can solve that with electric cars so we should get on with making that more accessible to everyone. The switch from horses to cars only took a few decades. Back in the 70s we had no car, we cycled everywhere, food came in a paper bag not a plastic one and we wore cotton clothes. It was more tiresome than now but we didn't die

All this BS on the far right about this not being real, it's just flat earth tier tinfoil. Sure the models are not perfect, but even as a pleb looking into this I'm finding it really complicated, but I can read a rising graph as well as anyone.

Do you have a better explanation of why global heat is rising, and why EVERYONE with a PhD is wrong but some bloke on bitchute is the only one who is right? Because all I'm seeing is flat earth videos vs everyone else, and tbh flat earth delusions are quite complicated to refute even though it's fucking obvious they are wrong

> Co2 is a shitty absorber of heat. everything I can find says the opposite >Put it in a test chamber alone and hey you skewed science and can pretend it's a good heat trap. But in the real world atmosphere co2 is a non factor As a heat trap. So what changes in the real world vs lab? >You do understand that we cannot live without co2? not sure how that's relevant? nobody is capable of removing it > If muh climate change due to co2 hypothesis was founded in science then predictions these last fifty years would of had value you could say the same about black holes, gravity waves and bigbang theories, but none of those are a likely threat >And climate change alarmism is actually a political program with zero intent and zero means and zero evidence to act to stagnate the global climate >Provide peer review evidence that politicians can stagnate global climate by stopping humans producing co2 well it won't, reducing methane will, CO2 is a long term goal >So what is the game plan behind CCA? Say we have a problem with dumping pollutants in the sea but your favourite politician owns Acme Poison Corp, are we all supposed to ignore the problem because you've made it political now? >The idea of human activity being unnatural is speciest with zero value. literally every upward tick in CO2, Methane, heat levels, sea levels, coral dying etc starts at the beginning of the industrial revolution, absolutely fuck all was happening before that time. Doesn't that seem even slightly suspicious to you? >Islanders are saying that sea levels are drowning islands sea levels are rising though? https://www.realclimate.org/images/Kemp_sealevel_20111.png look at when it starts rising... >So where do you stand on this? I can see within my own lifetime that the environment is way shittier than it was, the weather has become really erratic and hotter, and I can't remember the last time I made a snowball. I can look at any graph and point at the period when it all started, and it's always around 1800. Humans are doing "something" here. I don't care if that's farting more, driving more, feeding niggers, or eating avocados instead of turnips. I've also noticed we have way more autistic kids now, and kids with asthma. We are doing something wrong. I don't give a fuck if this is a Left wing plot, the jews did it, or trannies are melting the icecaps with disco music, we should come together and rewind everything we have been doing in the last 100 years. Better still if we can make some intelligent guesses as to exactly what we are doing wrong and fix that first. If the majority of scientists point at fossil fuels then fine, we can solve that with electric cars so we should get on with making that more accessible to everyone. The switch from horses to cars only took a few decades. Back in the 70s we had no car, we cycled everywhere, food came in a paper bag not a plastic one and we wore cotton clothes. It was more tiresome than now but we didn't die All this BS on the far right about this not being real, it's just flat earth tier tinfoil. Sure the models are not perfect, but even as a pleb looking into this I'm finding it really complicated, but I can read a rising graph as well as anyone. Do you have a better explanation of why global heat is rising, and why EVERYONE with a PhD is wrong but some bloke on bitchute is the only one who is right? Because all I'm seeing is flat earth videos vs everyone else, and tbh flat earth delusions are quite complicated to refute even though it's fucking obvious they are wrong

parent
link

[–] • 0 pt

My phone is too small to give you a proper response you deserve.

But consider that you are being told that co2 traps heat well. But also told that co2 is a tiny part of the atmosphere. That the prevalent greenhouses gases overlap the frequency co2 absorbs light.

So add the facts together and wonder how the conclusion you are told can possibly be true?

As for climate? Fifty years on this earth and no change for me let alone worse.

Air quality? Great. Water levels. Same. Storms. Same. Wind same.

Are you sure that you are not suffering psychosis?

parent
link

[–] • 0 pt

(edited )

But consider that you are being told that co2 traps heat well.

I'm not being "told" anything, I can go look all this up...

That the prevalent greenhouses gases overlap the frequency co2 absorbs light.

I see a stand-alone spike at ~4um (2.7, 4.3, 15 µM)

But also told that co2 is a tiny part of the atmosphere.

oxygen and nitrogen form 99% of the atmosphere and they do nothing, the remaining 1% is what does the absorption, so water vapour (0-4%) and CO2 (0.04%) and CH4 (0.00017%)

look at methane there, an even tinier amount but is far more effective

water vapour doesn't cover the entire globe evenly and is held close to the surface, but CO2 fills the atmosphere up evenly and all the way up to 50km, height makes the insulating effect more effective

That seems reasonable to me

So add the facts together and wonder how the conclusion you are told can possibly be true?

both your premises (doesn't absorb / but tiny amount) are wrong We can control CO2 and methane (and fluorocarbons), we can't control much else

Fifty years on this earth and no change for me let alone worse

Maybe you live in a city then. I'm in rural UK, we notice changes. I remember heavy snow every other winter, and predictable summers About 25 years ago we stopped getting snow (go look it up), summers are really hot now but with random weeks of rain, we get less wind now, but when it does come it is much more violent.

Are you sure that you are not suffering psychosis?

what do flat earthers, moon landings, chemtrails, alt-climate, fluoride, 5G nanobot vaccine people all have in common? Their alternative science, which is somehow always right and everyone else is lying because they are lizards or something. That the handful of clever people who support the tinfoil are somehow more right then the 99% of papers that support it?

I think it's significant that the only people thinking this is normal are Right Wing. This is a general problem for the Right, by nature we are more paranoid, more hostile to change and more distrusting of outgroups. So every time you think you "know something to be true" because you saw it on here, you have to understand the inherent bias of your own psychology.

.

Just look at this:

https://vimeo.com/721900811

does any of those changes look even remotely normal to you?

.

if it doesn't look normal, wouldn't you want to understand why everything suddenly started getting obviously shitty around 20-30 years ago? I have no idea why someone would go out of their way to pretend this isn't strange other than they are just following everyone else on Poal.

It's fine if you think this was really caused by disco music and tiktok, personally I think the graphs of CO2 exactly matching temperature increases are more significant.

even if I had no other input than a chemistry book I would start by looking at the effects of industrial man on climate first, because that's obviously going to be a factor in any sudden unpredicted change. If I noticed a CO2/CH4 graph and knew absolutely nothing about any other factors, I would come to the same conclusion here. I could point to those and notice they were the only things that were changing at the same rate as temperature was.

Even if you think it's some natural earth cycle, if 99% of people are saying this planet is going to get really uncomfortable soon, wouldn't you want to do something about that rather than sit on your hands, or worse, tell everyone else it isn't happening because Trump wanted to tell his base what they wanted to hear?

But consider that you are being told that co2 traps heat well. I'm not being "told" anything, I can go look all this up... [infrared absorption spectra](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/34/Mid-infrared_absorption_spectra_of_Gases.png/1200px-Mid-infrared_absorption_spectra_of_Gases.png) >That the prevalent greenhouses gases overlap the frequency co2 absorbs light. I see a stand-alone spike at ~4um (2.7, 4.3, 15 µM) >But also told that co2 is a tiny part of the atmosphere. oxygen and nitrogen form 99% of the atmosphere and they do nothing, **the remaining 1% is what does the absorption**, so water vapour (0-4%) and CO2 (0.04%) and CH4 (0.00017%) look at methane there, an even tinier amount but is far more effective water vapour doesn't cover the entire globe evenly and is held close to the surface, but CO2 fills the atmosphere up evenly and all the way up to 50km, height makes the insulating effect more effective That seems reasonable to me >So add the facts together and wonder how the conclusion you are told can possibly be true? both your premises (doesn't absorb / but tiny amount) are wrong We can control CO2 and methane (and fluorocarbons), we can't control much else >Fifty years on this earth and no change for me let alone worse Maybe you live in a city then. I'm in rural UK, we notice changes. I remember heavy snow every other winter, and predictable summers About 25 years ago we stopped getting snow (go look it up), summers are really hot now but with random weeks of rain, we get less wind now, but when it does come it is much more violent. >Are you sure that you are not suffering psychosis? what do flat earthers, moon landings, chemtrails, alt-climate, fluoride, 5G nanobot vaccine people all have in common? Their alternative science, which is somehow always right and everyone else is lying because they are lizards or something. That the handful of clever people who support the tinfoil are somehow more right then the 99% of papers that support it? I think it's significant that the only people thinking this is normal are Right Wing. This is a general problem for the Right, by nature we are more paranoid, more hostile to change and more distrusting of outgroups. So every time you think you "know something to be true" because you saw it on here, you have to understand the inherent bias of your own psychology. . Just look at this: https://vimeo.com/721900811 does *any* of those changes look even remotely normal to you? . if it doesn't look normal, wouldn't you want to understand why everything suddenly started getting obviously shitty around 20-30 years ago? I have no idea why someone would go out of their way to pretend this isn't strange other than they are just following everyone else on Poal. It's fine if you think this was really caused by disco music and tiktok, personally I think the graphs of CO2 exactly matching temperature increases are more significant. even if I had no other input than a chemistry book I would start by looking at the effects of industrial man on climate first, because that's obviously going to be a factor in any sudden unpredicted change. If I noticed a CO2/CH4 graph and knew absolutely nothing about any other factors, I would come to the same conclusion here. I could point to those and notice they were the only things that were changing at the same rate as temperature was. Even if you think it's some natural earth cycle, if 99% of people are saying this planet is going to get really uncomfortable soon, wouldn't you want to do something about that rather than sit on your hands, or worse, tell everyone else it isn't happening because Trump wanted to tell his base what they wanted to hear?

parent
link