User Controls
World to hit temperature tipping point 10 years faster than forecast
-
2023-09-25 at 11:08 PM UTC
Originally posted by Fox How does millions of tons of carbon spewed into the atmosphere affect the weather? That’s also a question
According to the fraudsters' own data, the exact composition of the atmosphere indicates it consists of only 0.04% carbon. That is four one-hundredths of one percent. Also, according to the fraudsters' own data, at a 0.02% carbon level, plant life begins to die. And you think this mumbo-jumbo of Obbe's is good for the environment? Please. Not all of us buy into this factless pseudoscience of his. -
2023-09-25 at 11:17 PM UTC
Originally posted by ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ According to the fraudsters' own data, the exact composition of the atmosphere indicates it consists of only 0.04% carbon. That is four one-hundredths of one percent. Also, according to the fraudsters' own data, at a 0.02% carbon level, plant life begins to die. And you think this mumbo-jumbo of Obbe's is good for the environment? Please. Not all of us buy into this factless pseudoscience of his.
So what? We only put in a couple thousandths of a percent of CFC in the atmosphere and in a matter of decades it almost destroyed the ozone layer, until we reversed course. A small change can compound into huge effects in a complex system.
If we double the amount of carbon in the atmosphere, then we double the warming effect that carbon has on the planet. If we triple it, the warming effect triples. For the sake of this argument it doesn’t matter what percentage of the atmosphere it accounts for all we care about is the warming effect that it causes. Like I really don’t understand what point you’re trying to make.The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire! -
2023-09-25 at 11:18 PM UTCNobody is talking about eliminating the natural sources of carbon in the atmosphere and killing all plant life, we’re only talking about not adding more.
I’m getting a feeling of deja vu here -
2023-09-25 at 11:19 PM UTC
-
2023-09-25 at 11:21 PM UTC
Originally posted by Fox …If we double the amount of carbon in the atmosphere, then we double the warming effect that carbon has on the planet. If we triple it, the warming effect triples…
You just pulled that straight out of your ass. There is no credible data out there which supports this theory. In fact, the credible data demonstrates there really is no man-made climate change. The issue is pollution, not climate, but the target is the people, not corporations. -
2023-09-25 at 11:27 PM UTC
Originally posted by ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ You just pulled that straight out of your ass. There is no credible data out there which supports this theory. In fact, the credible data demonstrates there really is no man-made climate change. The issue is pollution, not climate, but the target is the people, not corporations.
I didn’t make a theory, I stated a simple fact. Carbon absorbs heat from the sun, other things reflect it. If you double the amount of carbon in the atmosphere, the amount of warming caused by carbon doubles. That’s just a statement of fact not a speculation. I mean you COULD argue about how much warming is actually caused by carbon, but you’re not even doing that because you have no idea so you have no way to argue that point.
Like how retarded are you seriously? Don’t you need some rudimentary understanding of math to be some kind of leet hacker or whatever? I can’t make this any simpler for you. -
2023-09-25 at 11:27 PM UTC
-
2023-09-25 at 11:32 PM UTC
Originally posted by Fox I didn’t make a theory, I stated a simple fact. Carbon absorbs heat from the sun, other things reflect it. If you double the amount of carbon in the atmosphere, the amount of warming caused by carbon doubles. That’s just a statement of fact not a speculation. I mean you COULD argue about how much warming is actually caused by carbon, but you’re not even doing that because you have no idea so you have no way to argue that point.
Like how retarded are you seriously? Don’t you need some rudimentary understanding of math to be some kind of leet hacker or whatever? I can’t make this any simpler for you.
Well, if there's so much pollution, why aren't they going after the major polluters, instead of going after Mom and Pop just trying to put supper on the table? Know why? Because they want to drain the public coffers, and the taxpayers, with a complete hoax. It's not really about climate or pollution, it's about profit and power and control, on a global scale this time around. -
2023-09-25 at 11:35 PM UTC
Originally posted by ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ Well, if there's so much pollution, why aren't they going after the major polluters, instead of going after Mom and Pop just trying to put supper on the table? Know why? Because they want to drain the public coffers, and the taxpayers, with a complete hoax. It's not really about climate or pollution, it's about profit and power and control, on a global scale this time around.
Ok so now your argument is, because we aren’t going hard enough against other polluters, it’s ok for some industries to pollute? I swear the goal posts keep moving every time you’re proven wrong.
I’m against all polluters, get them too I don’t give a shit. Two wrongs don’t make a right and all thatThe following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire! -
2023-09-25 at 11:35 PM UTCAlso it’s insane that you think exxonmobil is “mom and pop” the level of delusion is truly incredibleThe following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire!
-
2023-09-25 at 11:40 PM UTC
-
2023-09-25 at 11:50 PM UTC
Originally posted by ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ We're back to the main question, the only question that matters: how are they going to change the weather by robbing the peasants of their last few dollars?
And here’s my rebuttal: you are incapable of separating politics from reality in your feeble pea-brain. If you must know I’m also against banning meat, and planes, and cars, and putting a carbon tax on “mom and pop” and all that other green new deal left wing bullshit. So all that stuff is completely irrelevant to my position.
My position is that putting billions of tons of carbon into the atmosphere is not sustainable or wise, and we should stop as quickly as possible in a way that doesn’t also simultaneously crash the economy. So essentially take some of the money we already give to those industries and use it to build out the infrastructure for alternatives over the next 20-30 years, maybe 50 years tops. This will open up a whole new sector of jobs and growth that will probably bolster the economy for the next century and build a much more sustainable future.
I mean do you WANT to live in Evansville, Indiana right in the middle of 7 coal-fired power plants and everyone gets the black lung when they’re 9? We know this kind of shit is bad, it’s common sense, it’s not good for the environment and it’s not good for people so why keep doing it forever when viable alternatives have already been invented? It makes no fucking sense. -
2023-09-26 at 12:04 AM UTC
Originally posted by Fox And here’s my rebuttal: you are incapable of separating politics from reality in your feeble pea-brain. If you must know I’m also against banning meat, and planes, and cars, and putting a carbon tax on “mom and pop” and all that other green new deal left wing bullshit. So all that stuff is completely irrelevant to my position.
My position is that putting billions of tons of carbon into the atmosphere is not sustainable or wise, and we should stop as quickly as possible in a way that doesn’t also simultaneously crash the economy. So essentially take some of the money we already give to those industries and use it to build out the infrastructure for alternatives over the next 20-30 years, maybe 50 years tops. This will open up a whole new sector of jobs and growth that will probably bolster the economy for the next century and build a much more sustainable future.
I mean do you WANT to live in Evansville, Indiana right in the middle of 7 coal-fired power plants and everyone gets the black lung when they’re 9? We know this kind of shit is bad, it’s common sense, it’s not good for the environment and it’s not good for people so why keep doing it forever when viable alternatives have already been invented? It makes no fucking sense.
Why do you need alternatives, when you can easily just stop them from polluting populated towns and cities and killing people altogether? Why the extreme focus on Mom and Pop's bank accounts instead? I don't think you know how this game is played. -
2023-09-26 at 12:08 AM UTC
Originally posted by ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ Why do you need alternatives, when you can easily just stop them from polluting populated towns and cities and killing people altogether? Why the extreme focus on Mom and Pop's bank accounts instead? I don't think you know how this game is played.
I know the game is rigged and I have a much better understanding of why that is than you do. BELIEVE that. That’s why I don’t vote.
And that’s why I’m not getting involved in a political discussion. My solution is not a political one, it is merely logical
-
2023-09-26 at 12:09 AM UTC
-
2023-09-26 at 12:19 AM UTC
Originally posted by Fox I know the game is rigged and I have a much better understanding of why that is than you do. BELIEVE that. That’s why I don’t vote.
And that’s why I’m not getting involved in a political discussion. My solution is not a political one, it is merely logical
But the climate change agenda IS a political one, because it's funded by political parties. Once the money is in the equation, it becomes political. You can't change that fact. -
2023-09-26 at 12:22 AM UTC
Originally posted by ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ But the climate change agenda IS a political one, because it's funded by political parties. Once the money is in the equation, it becomes political. You can't change that fact.
I don’t care about the “agenda”. I’m just sticking to scientific facts and reasonable solutions, both things you will never find in a chamber full of government officials. It is possible to separate the two concepts, something that is entirely lost on your fractured psycheThe following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire! -
2023-09-26 at 12:24 AM UTC
Originally posted by Fox I don’t care about the “agenda”. I’m just sticking to scientific facts and reasonable solutions, both things you will never find in a chamber full of government officials. It is possible to separate the two concepts, something that is entirely lost on your fractured psyche
You'd like to see changes, but they're working on completely different ones. And you're good with it. Alright. -
2023-09-26 at 12:37 AM UTC
-
2023-09-26 at 1:01 AM UTC
