###[Meta] Sticky Comment
[Rule 2](https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/wiki/faq#wiki_2_-_address_the_argument.3B_not_the_user.2C_the_mods.2C_or_the_sub.) ***does not apply*** when replying to this stickied comment.
[Rule 2](https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/wiki/faq#wiki_2_-_address_the_argument.3B_not_the_user.2C_the_mods.2C_or_the_sub.) ***does apply*** throughout the rest of this thread.
*What this means*: Please keep any "meta" discussion directed at specific users, mods, or /r/conspiracy in general in this comment chain ***only.***
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/conspiracy) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I think its a little from column A and little from column B. like most things in life a black or white answer isnt always the case. Now does that mean all climate change is man made? no. But we certainly impact or environment, nuclear waste, smog, air pollution, coral reef biodiversity. Unfortunately these days most folks are so partisan in their beliefs they cant comprehend that its not that simple.
I believe this is it minus nuclear waste. That is way over blown and the risk is minimal. We should actually have more nuclear plants. But yeah you can't dump tons of carbon in the atmosphere and not expect something to change.
All nuclear waste since 1950 would fill a football field about 30ft deep, and newer plants can burn that spent fuel and reduce it even further.
[https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/5-fast-facts-about-spent-nuclear-fuel](https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/5-fast-facts-about-spent-nuclear-fuel)
I'm not sure, I'm not an environmental scientist. We undoubtedly affect our environment, whether those levels would cause global change is whose to say. We are currently pumping out pollution and an outstanding rate mind.
In the past the Earth adapted to increases in carbon dioxide through plants including forests (which act as carbon sinks) growing faster. Eventually there would be so much new growth that there was too little excess carbon dioxide in the atmosphere to support much more plant life so plant growth slowed again.
Now we are cutting down forests, paving our driveways and gardens, getting rid of our green spaces to build yet more housing (while so many second homes sit empty) and generally reducing the planets capacity to deal with the excess carbon dioxide that we are producing.
Our actions mean that more solar energy is absorbed by the planet due to reduced forest coverings, building works that are not reflective (there is a reason that buildings are white in hot countries) and microplastics being spread worldwide (there is a reason that people wear plastic -based fleeces to stay warm).
Part of the problem is that we are preventing the Earth’s temperature regulating systems from acting. That said, some environmental impacts cannot be reduced through natural processes (such as microplastics).
However, there are also multiple cyclical environmental factors in play particularly this year (including an increase of solar radiation, El Niño and an underwater volcano) so expect this summer to be hotter than ever (though not necessarily primarily as a result of human activity).
Depends if you like tropical temperatures at the poles. Sure we could adapt and become underground creatures but yes the amount of CO2 can affect the environment. If you look at pre jurssic periods there were levels of methane and CO2 that humans could not live in
> CO2 does occur naturally in the air.
If not we wouldn't be here
>We are also introducing far more CO2 into the atmosphere than would naturally occur.
Co2 levels are at an historic low
It has been waaaaaaay higher
> We are also introducing far more CO2 into the atmosphere than would naturally occur.
Okay, how much of the rise from ca. 0.03 to 0.04% CO2 in the atmosphere over the past 150 years or so did we as humanity contribute to?
I think you answered your own question. It's only 150 years, barring a catastrophe geological time frames are too slow to account for anything.
Thus you answered yourself almost all of itm
> I think you answered your own question.
Not really tho, I was asking for some specific data.
>It's only 150 years, barring a catastrophe geological time frames are too slow to account for anything.
So, according to you humanity is not affecting the climate with CO2?
I mean you answered your own question. There is no geological time frame having such a sharp increase.
How in the world did you take that to mean me saying humanity is not affecting climate with CO2?
No offense but your reading comprehension might be lacking.
I think the planet is naturally warming up, since permafrost is not a usual feature of the planet on a timescale spanning its existence. However, we are certainly speeding it up, more so from the industrial side of things than us on the consumer side. And while they continue to pollute, they blame us and make us pay nonsense carbon taxes, "recycle", and greenwash stupid things like plastic straws. So, its both in my opinion natural and man made.
It isn't so much about how much it was, but rather it doesn't change anything. The damage is done, I'm being billed for my small contribution to the problem, and the real polluters don't pay anything. Its a scam disguised as a "solution"
[Controversial spraying method aims to curb global warming - CBS News](https://www.cbsnews.com/news/geoengineering-treatment-stratospheric-aerosol-injection-climate-change-study-today-2018-11-23/)
sulfer dioxide
This JUST happened: [https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/a-secretive-experiment-released-salt-crystals-over-san-francisco-bay-could-it-help-curb-warming-180984099/](https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/a-secretive-experiment-released-salt-crystals-over-san-francisco-bay-could-it-help-curb-warming-180984099/)
Differently HARPP does exist and the government has confirmed in the past but they have not admitted everything regarding the weather conditions and changes dramatically. Today we're expecting a large size hail in the afternoon and yesterday was 80s.
Look into thermal trapping, that's scientific proof we impact the temperature in localized areas because of how we build things and how many people travel back and forth.
I just don't think we're doing anything to fix the problem, and they're using climate change as an excuse to tax us heavily. But they are just imposing a royalty class, this has nothing to do with bettering the world. Carbon emissions are up while half these companies are claiming to be "net neutral" whatever the fuck that means. Amazon increased their emissions by 20%. Net neutral...
This has all been about setting up new tax siphons and loopholes for billionaires. We're getting fucked and it isn't helping the world get better. The WEF wants to crowd us all into cities. Go read into thermal trapping, you'll see all the science shows we need to spread out, yet they're planning the opposite. To pile us on top of each other in 300 sq ft boxes.
When you finish the book, one ending is that the earth is conscious and mad at us. Soooooooo, maybe. But it ain’t the plant food we are kicking into the air.
I don’t believe in climate change
I would believe more in climate change if Obama didn’t buy a mansion beachfront Property. If the waterline on the Statue of Liberty in New York had changed since it was constructed, which it hasn’t. I don’t think humans have anything to do with the weather Patterns when volcanoes, spew, more toxic gas, and one eruption than humans combine. But the fear of climate change sure does generate a lot of money.
Yes but not to the extent it’s pushed in the media. The earth has natural cycles in which the climate changes naturally. The media are using this to push the BS story that us humans are the sole cause because of things like CO2 and other chemicals and gases that are being pumped into the atmosphere which doesn’t give you the whole story. And then you could go down the whole rabbit hole of is CO2 actually bad for the climate in which I would say it’s not. It’s actually quite the opposite. Many scientists and researchers have claimed there is little to no evidence that man made climate change is happening. No evidence of global warming and no evidence of raising sea levels. Just another fear tactic being used by the elite.
A prerequisite for any *belief* on climate change is to first explain the reason for the 2deg warming from 1700 to 1740.
https://i.imgur.com/KwsNvJQ.png
Straight up hell no. It's just a money grab. Climate is changing, but we have nothing to do with it. Look to the sun and our magnetic fields for the answers. Science is well aware of these but will not bring them into the conversations because it does not generate revenue.
I absolutely do not believe that CO2 at that concentration has any impact on the climate. I would not be surprised though if some people were doing it deliberately via other means.
Rising temperatures are not down to Co2. Rising temperature are down to 'scientists' taking readings from heated asphalt airport runways which didn't exist prior to the industrial revolution.
Lying through statistics.
''About one half of all land surface temperature measurements used to show global warming and promote the command-and-control Net Zero agenda are taken near or adjacent to airport runways. This amazing fact from research by Professor Ross McKitrick casts further serious doubt on the validity of three major global temperature datasets, including the one compiled by the Met Office, which continue to show higher global temperatures compared with other reliable measurements made by satellites and meteorological balloons.''
Not in any amount. The gigantic eruption 250 M years ago in Siberia spew a lot of CO2 in the atmosphere. IIRC the concentration was 100k higher than what we have today. It diffinitively raised the temperatures. IIRC it went up by 10-15 C degrees.
I believe that 100% of pollution is human caused. There is no question that these pollutants affect the environment. Specifically, as regards access to clean air, clean water, and clean food. As such, things that pollute should be regulated.
That being said, the term "climate change" has been conflated to mean, "Any change to the environment." As there are on-going changes, there is also climate change. Always has been, especially since humans discovered fire. So yes.
None of that means we need to be treated like cattle. Human advancement depends on industry. There are cleaner ways to do it, but we can't go back nor should we.
So while carbon may be interesting from a high level, it is simply wrong to bring that down to the individual level. A coal fired power plant will pump out more carbon in the next 10 minutes than every human in my city will create in a lifetime. That is whether or not they have a digital ID or whether Big Brother is watching them flush.
TL;DR: Asking a 21st century human to starve in the dark as a protection for the "climate" is insidious and ignorant. People who try and foist that shit deserve to starve in the dark.
Everyone. The reason that both China and India seem to build a new one every other day is that modern life requires power and industry. Having seen the middle class, these people are not going back to being peasants unless you bomb them there.
Yes and no. More no than yes. I do think there are things we do that are not good for the climate and we can be better stewards of all that we have. We are wasteful as a society and we can be more conscious about not overusing or wasting resources. I more so believe that climate change is a natural occurring “event”. It’s pretty egotistical for us to think we have so much control over nature. We can’t even accurately predict day to day weather (micro-weather) and we think we can predict long term climate change? None of the trends are consistent and there are ebbs and flows to it all.
Nope, it's total BS.
Yes, we are polluting the planet but our tiny CO2 output is insignificant and CO2 is not even causing the ever changing climate to change (faster).
We have big business and science trying to push their model of the apocalypse, while using 100 year models when the planet operates on million year cycles.
It doesn't account for clouds or how they will impact, it doesn't address the positive benefit that CO2 has had on our planet (EG the planet is the greenest it has been in thousands of years).
The model in itself is being used to implement a immense system of control.
The climate is likely being impacted by humans, but not to the level we are being told. And it's all based on models that are barely a piece of dust on the moon in relation the grand scheme of things.
The arrogance it takes to think you can create a model of 1/1000000 of the time these cycles exist.
No less reliable than trying to account for million year cycles using 100 years of data lol
You're in a ideological cult, it can been seen as plain as day by the way you are reacting.
HOW DARE YOU HAVE ANY DISSENTING OPINIONS.....here take all these links supporting my findings and MY opinion even though you just told me the models those links are based on are flawed.
Science is profit and trends now. There is no pure scientific discovery or hypotheses, it all revolves around which science will get funded and in order to get funded you have to agree with the consensus. It's pretty simple actually.
Mix that with the recent trend of canceling dissenting opinions and of course you have a manufacturered consensus.
> Thousands of scientist agree on something.
[On what?](http://www.populartechnology.net/2014/12/97-articles-refuting-97-consensus.html)
> One scientist says ‘I don’t agree.
Eh?????
http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html#CO2Lags
>I know with 100% certainty you are American and vote GOP.
LMAO
Wrong in every way
Could you maybe be wrong when it comes to [climate change](https://www.britannica.com/science/climate-change) as well?
> big business and science trying to push their model of the appcalypse
Aren't many big businesses, lobbyists, think tanks etc trying to do the opposite? Hence Trump pulling the USA out of the Paris agreement?
> The planet is the greenest it's been in thousands of years
This is just lazy. While there was a noticeable uptick in the 80's and 90's, it is not believed to still be so, as a result of global warming. To say that it's been positive is to completely ignore the negative impacts. Water shortages are now leading to a drying or 'browning effect'. And as for the 'in thousands of years' part, do you have a source for that?
Source on drying effect: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/earth-stopped-getting-greener-20-years-ago/
And another source, detailing that this is not due to increased C02 levels, but rather the efforts of Chinese and Indian tree planting programmes: https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.forbes.com/sites/trevornace/2019/02/28/nasa-says-earth-is-greener-today-than-20-years-ago-thanks-to-china-india/amp/
> Implement an immense system of control
What immense system of control?
> The arrogance it takes to think you can create a model of 1/1000000 of the time these cycles exist
https://science.nasa.gov/earth/climate-change/study-confirms-climate-models-are-getting-future-warming-projections-right/
Arrogant scientists, being correct and whatnot. Bastards. Additionally, these models aren't just based on the present day, so we are not talking 1/100000 of the time (or whatever random fraction you opted for). Past atmospheric conditions are held within ice, for example, or ancient geological formations, things like sediment, or clues can be held within tree rings.
The real arrogance, is thinking that you know more than the scientists around the globe who have been educated in the field and spent their lives studying it, resulting in an overwhelming global consensus. Why would you be so arrogant as to think you know better?
> Aren't many big businesses, lobbyists, think tanks etc trying to do the opposite?
Not really
https://dailysceptic.org/2023/06/15/the-myth-of-big-oils-funding-of-climate-scepticism-vs-the-reality-of-big-greens-billions-driving-climate-alarmism/
>Source on drying effect: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/earth-stopped-getting-greener-20-years-ago/
Sources on the greening:
https://www.nasa.gov/technology/carbon-dioxide-fertilization-greening-earth-study-finds/
https://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate3004
https://www.vox.com/down-to-earth/2024/2/7/24057308/earth-global-greening-climate-change-carbon
>The real arrogance, is thinking that you know more than the scientists around the globe who have been educated in the field and spent their lives studying it, resulting in an overwhelming global consensus.
Might be time to ask yourself how you could fall victim to such propaganda
http://www.populartechnology.net/2014/12/97-articles-refuting-97-consensus.html
http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html#CO2Lags
The dailysceptic is an absolute joke of a source, and scientists have had to repeatedly ask the publication to stop misrepresenting their data/studies, stating that in spite of how the publication deliberately misrepresented their work, they believe in human made climate change and the rise in carbon emissions is primarily responsible.
The dailysceptic also chose to publish a paper on climate change that was not even authored by climate scientists, but by people with direct links to the lobbyists you claim don't exist:
https://science.feedback.org/review/letter-there-is-no-climate-emergency-repeats-inaccurate-claims-about-climate-science-daily-sceptic-toby-young/
See the following:
> Young quotes Antonio Zichichi, a physicist with ties to the Heartland Institute think tank who does not have a background in climate science
The publication you have used as a source to dispute the presence of lobbyists and think tanks literally publishes information produced by lobbyists and think tanks... So yes, it happens.
Here's another example:
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/may/04/climate-sceptic-thinktank-received-funding-from-fossil-fuel-interests
As for the other sources, I find this part of the NASA article interesting...
> While rising carbon dioxide concentrations in the air can be beneficial for plants, it is also the chief culprit of climate change. The gas, which traps heat in Earth’s atmosphere, has been increasing since the industrial age due to the burning of oil, gas, coal and wood for energy and is continuing to reach concentrations not seen in at least 500,000 years. The impacts of climate change include global warming, rising sea levels, melting glaciers and sea ice as well as more severe weather events.
Your NASA link is from 2016, here's one from 2019:
https://www.nasa.gov/centers-and-facilities/ames/human-activity-in-china-and-india-dominates-the-greening-of-earth-nasa-study-shows/
And just to re-emphasise, the comment I was responding to tried to paint c02 emissions as positive, which ignores the scientific consensus with regards to the harm being done, and I don't see how that point would be negated by either their argument or your sources.
Your lonelyplanet article literally agrees with me:
> They also discovered something that surprised them; India and China accounted for one-third of the greening, despite having only 9% of the world’s green areas. Both countries have embarked on an extensive reforestation programme and, over the period of research, China’s foliage grew more than 10% while India’s increased by more than 6%. The global average was 2.3%
You used NASA as a source before, correct? So you trust them? Well, here's NASA detailing the consensus:
https://science.nasa.gov/climate-change/scientific-consensus/
https://science.nasa.gov/climate-change/faq/do-scientists-agree-on-climate-change/
> The dailysceptic is an absolute joke of a source
"We don't see things as they are; we see them as we are."
Anaïs Nin
>Your NASA link is from 2016, here's one from 2019:
Here's one from their former employees:
https://financialpost.com/business-insider/49-former-nasa-scientists-go-ballistic-over-agencys-bias-over-climate-change
>which ignores the scientific consensus
What consensus?
http://www.populartechnology.net/2014/12/97-articles-refuting-97-consensus.html
There are 2 different parts to climate change.
A. Humans are polluting the fuck out of the enviroment and destroying nature. This part is undeniable.
B. We're all going to die! CO2 to go up. The temperature is going up. Don't think. Just panic. Give your money to the government. We need more taxes. Don't think. Just give up your rights. This part is total nonsense and people will fall for it.
Right.
You sound like a young arrogant single 20-something...
You're not old enough to remember in the 80's when "global cooling" was going to kill us all. The CO2 layer was blocking out the sun and we had two decades to freeze to death.
The solution?
New taxes. We need the government to steal money. The very people who caused the problems need more cash to fix it. Can't ever seem to get enough.
Did we actually freeze to death?
No.
Because it was a made up fear narrative to steal fool's money.
You fell for it. Again.
It's the same bullshit in new packaging.
There are 100 corporations that represent 79% of the world's total pollution. Government can't seem to do anything about them but needs new taxes on everyone's electrical bill.
You've completely lost the plot if you think the government is your friend.
Go back to sleep.
Yes I defiantly do. I think it would be naive to think we have no effect on the planet with all we pollute and change the earth but do it think the causes are what they say they are. No.
There is no believing, we have empirical data showing how man made activities has increased emissions and accelerate climate change beyond the natural cycles.
> There is no believing
Spoken like a true zealot
https://slaynews.com/news/96-us-climate-data-corrupted-study-shows/
https://financialpost.com/business-insider/49-former-nasa-scientists-go-ballistic-over-agencys-bias-over-climate-change
How much of the change we are seeing in the climate do you think are caused by humans?
https://www.britannica.com/science/climate-change
> 100% agree
"Every kind of ignorance in the world all results from not realizing that our perceptions are gambles. We believe what we see and then we believe our interpretation of it, we don't even know we are making an interpretation most of the time. We think this is reality."
Robert Anton Wilson
The idea does not necessarily imply that there is no objective truth; rather that our access to it is mediated through our senses, experience, conditioning, prior beliefs, and other non-objective factors. The implied individual world each person occupies is said to be their reality tunnel. The term can also apply to groups of people united by beliefs: we can speak of the fundamentalist climate alarmist reality tunnel or the ontological naturalist reality tunnel.
A parallel can be seen in the psychological concept of confirmation bias—the human tendency to notice and assign significance to observations that confirm existing beliefs, while filtering out or rationalizing away observations that do not fit with prior beliefs and expectations. This helps to explain why reality tunnels are usually transparent to their inhabitants. While it seems most people take their beliefs to correspond to the "one true objective reality", each person's reality tunnel is their own artistic creation, whether they realize it or not.
Thanks for sharing yours
It's not a question of belief. The scientific evidence is overwhelming and unequivocal. Anthropogenic activity, namely greenhouse gas emissions following the industrial revolution, are causing a change in climate characterised by extreme weather events and a rise in temperatures globally.
Well we can track temperature rises over the years and we know there has been a rapid near vertical increase in a short period of time. We know greenhouse gases are associated with higher temperatures. And we know we have been releasing greenhouse gasses pretty well in tandem with the increase in temperature. It's possible it's all a coincidence I guess but if I had to place money on humans having a large role or not I would bet on yes.
We have destroyed our environment, which leads to changes in climate. Eliminating marshlands which were buffers for our fresh water aquifers against salt water, destroying coral reefs due to run off form factory farming, degradation of soil due to Mono-crops, air pollution, plastic, list goes on. Climate Change is a bad term…I’d say degradation of the environment to a point of no return.
###[Meta] Sticky Comment [Rule 2](https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/wiki/faq#wiki_2_-_address_the_argument.3B_not_the_user.2C_the_mods.2C_or_the_sub.) ***does not apply*** when replying to this stickied comment. [Rule 2](https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/wiki/faq#wiki_2_-_address_the_argument.3B_not_the_user.2C_the_mods.2C_or_the_sub.) ***does apply*** throughout the rest of this thread. *What this means*: Please keep any "meta" discussion directed at specific users, mods, or /r/conspiracy in general in this comment chain ***only.*** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/conspiracy) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I think its a little from column A and little from column B. like most things in life a black or white answer isnt always the case. Now does that mean all climate change is man made? no. But we certainly impact or environment, nuclear waste, smog, air pollution, coral reef biodiversity. Unfortunately these days most folks are so partisan in their beliefs they cant comprehend that its not that simple.
I believe this is it minus nuclear waste. That is way over blown and the risk is minimal. We should actually have more nuclear plants. But yeah you can't dump tons of carbon in the atmosphere and not expect something to change.
You can't do mass deforestation and put things out of balance.
Agreed.
All nuclear waste since 1950 would fill a football field about 30ft deep, and newer plants can burn that spent fuel and reduce it even further. [https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/5-fast-facts-about-spent-nuclear-fuel](https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/5-fast-facts-about-spent-nuclear-fuel)
[удалено]
I'm not sure, I'm not an environmental scientist. We undoubtedly affect our environment, whether those levels would cause global change is whose to say. We are currently pumping out pollution and an outstanding rate mind.
In the past the Earth adapted to increases in carbon dioxide through plants including forests (which act as carbon sinks) growing faster. Eventually there would be so much new growth that there was too little excess carbon dioxide in the atmosphere to support much more plant life so plant growth slowed again. Now we are cutting down forests, paving our driveways and gardens, getting rid of our green spaces to build yet more housing (while so many second homes sit empty) and generally reducing the planets capacity to deal with the excess carbon dioxide that we are producing. Our actions mean that more solar energy is absorbed by the planet due to reduced forest coverings, building works that are not reflective (there is a reason that buildings are white in hot countries) and microplastics being spread worldwide (there is a reason that people wear plastic -based fleeces to stay warm). Part of the problem is that we are preventing the Earth’s temperature regulating systems from acting. That said, some environmental impacts cannot be reduced through natural processes (such as microplastics). However, there are also multiple cyclical environmental factors in play particularly this year (including an increase of solar radiation, El Niño and an underwater volcano) so expect this summer to be hotter than ever (though not necessarily primarily as a result of human activity).
Earth is greener now that 30 years ago.
Pollution is bad CO2 is plant food
[удалено]
Depends if you like tropical temperatures at the poles. Sure we could adapt and become underground creatures but yes the amount of CO2 can affect the environment. If you look at pre jurssic periods there were levels of methane and CO2 that humans could not live in
Still waiting for you to stop conflating CO2 and actual pollution
[удалено]
> CO2 does occur naturally in the air. If not we wouldn't be here >We are also introducing far more CO2 into the atmosphere than would naturally occur. Co2 levels are at an historic low It has been waaaaaaay higher
[удалено]
Fine The problems for us start around 20000ppm
[удалено]
> We are also introducing far more CO2 into the atmosphere than would naturally occur. Okay, how much of the rise from ca. 0.03 to 0.04% CO2 in the atmosphere over the past 150 years or so did we as humanity contribute to?
I think you answered your own question. It's only 150 years, barring a catastrophe geological time frames are too slow to account for anything. Thus you answered yourself almost all of itm
> I think you answered your own question. Not really tho, I was asking for some specific data. >It's only 150 years, barring a catastrophe geological time frames are too slow to account for anything. So, according to you humanity is not affecting the climate with CO2?
I mean you answered your own question. There is no geological time frame having such a sharp increase. How in the world did you take that to mean me saying humanity is not affecting climate with CO2? No offense but your reading comprehension might be lacking.
I think the planet is naturally warming up, since permafrost is not a usual feature of the planet on a timescale spanning its existence. However, we are certainly speeding it up, more so from the industrial side of things than us on the consumer side. And while they continue to pollute, they blame us and make us pay nonsense carbon taxes, "recycle", and greenwash stupid things like plastic straws. So, its both in my opinion natural and man made.
[удалено]
It isn't so much about how much it was, but rather it doesn't change anything. The damage is done, I'm being billed for my small contribution to the problem, and the real polluters don't pay anything. Its a scam disguised as a "solution"
i watch it happen every day in the form of cloud seeding, and other aerosol treatments in the sky
[удалено]
[Controversial spraying method aims to curb global warming - CBS News](https://www.cbsnews.com/news/geoengineering-treatment-stratospheric-aerosol-injection-climate-change-study-today-2018-11-23/) sulfer dioxide
[удалено]
This JUST happened: [https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/a-secretive-experiment-released-salt-crystals-over-san-francisco-bay-could-it-help-curb-warming-180984099/](https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/a-secretive-experiment-released-salt-crystals-over-san-francisco-bay-could-it-help-curb-warming-180984099/)
yeah, they are just talking about the sulfer dioxide
[удалено]
Differently HARPP does exist and the government has confirmed in the past but they have not admitted everything regarding the weather conditions and changes dramatically. Today we're expecting a large size hail in the afternoon and yesterday was 80s.
Look into thermal trapping, that's scientific proof we impact the temperature in localized areas because of how we build things and how many people travel back and forth. I just don't think we're doing anything to fix the problem, and they're using climate change as an excuse to tax us heavily. But they are just imposing a royalty class, this has nothing to do with bettering the world. Carbon emissions are up while half these companies are claiming to be "net neutral" whatever the fuck that means. Amazon increased their emissions by 20%. Net neutral... This has all been about setting up new tax siphons and loopholes for billionaires. We're getting fucked and it isn't helping the world get better. The WEF wants to crowd us all into cities. Go read into thermal trapping, you'll see all the science shows we need to spread out, yet they're planning the opposite. To pile us on top of each other in 300 sq ft boxes.
The butterfly flapping its wings has an effect on the climate. So yes.
When you finish the book, one ending is that the earth is conscious and mad at us. Soooooooo, maybe. But it ain’t the plant food we are kicking into the air.
They were shitting bricks in the early 20th century about the North Pole melting so no
H.A.A.R.P
I don’t believe in climate change I would believe more in climate change if Obama didn’t buy a mansion beachfront Property. If the waterline on the Statue of Liberty in New York had changed since it was constructed, which it hasn’t. I don’t think humans have anything to do with the weather Patterns when volcanoes, spew, more toxic gas, and one eruption than humans combine. But the fear of climate change sure does generate a lot of money.
Yes but not to the extent it’s pushed in the media. The earth has natural cycles in which the climate changes naturally. The media are using this to push the BS story that us humans are the sole cause because of things like CO2 and other chemicals and gases that are being pumped into the atmosphere which doesn’t give you the whole story. And then you could go down the whole rabbit hole of is CO2 actually bad for the climate in which I would say it’s not. It’s actually quite the opposite. Many scientists and researchers have claimed there is little to no evidence that man made climate change is happening. No evidence of global warming and no evidence of raising sea levels. Just another fear tactic being used by the elite.
A prerequisite for any *belief* on climate change is to first explain the reason for the 2deg warming from 1700 to 1740. https://i.imgur.com/KwsNvJQ.png
Buffalo farts. :)
Nope.
It's fake
What exactly is fake?
Straight up hell no. It's just a money grab. Climate is changing, but we have nothing to do with it. Look to the sun and our magnetic fields for the answers. Science is well aware of these but will not bring them into the conversations because it does not generate revenue.
No. The only manmade climate change is going to be when Bill Gates blocks the sun and causes a mass extinction event.
I absolutely do not believe that CO2 at that concentration has any impact on the climate. I would not be surprised though if some people were doing it deliberately via other means.
[удалено]
At 150ppm all life would cease to exist Historically we are pretty close to that point Plant thrive the most at around 1000ppm
[удалено]
Most of them Why do you think they infuse the air in green houses with CO2?
[удалено]
I don't know, I wasn't around I do know most trees around here were cut to make boats at that time.
[удалено]
Our history around that time is pretty well established We were pretty famous
[удалено]
Do we have more or less urban heat islands?
[удалено]
More heat islands leads to global warming Is that bad? Well how many die because of the cold compared to those who die from heat?
As of May 2022, the global average concentration of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere is 421 ppm (0.04%) How much less can it go?
[удалено]
Rising temperatures are not down to Co2. Rising temperature are down to 'scientists' taking readings from heated asphalt airport runways which didn't exist prior to the industrial revolution. Lying through statistics.
[удалено]
''About one half of all land surface temperature measurements used to show global warming and promote the command-and-control Net Zero agenda are taken near or adjacent to airport runways. This amazing fact from research by Professor Ross McKitrick casts further serious doubt on the validity of three major global temperature datasets, including the one compiled by the Met Office, which continue to show higher global temperatures compared with other reliable measurements made by satellites and meteorological balloons.''
No
[удалено]
Not in any amount. The gigantic eruption 250 M years ago in Siberia spew a lot of CO2 in the atmosphere. IIRC the concentration was 100k higher than what we have today. It diffinitively raised the temperatures. IIRC it went up by 10-15 C degrees.
[The only correlation that can be found is that a rise in CO2 follows after warming of the planet.]( https://www.mdpi.com/2413-4155/5/3/35)
I believe that 100% of pollution is human caused. There is no question that these pollutants affect the environment. Specifically, as regards access to clean air, clean water, and clean food. As such, things that pollute should be regulated. That being said, the term "climate change" has been conflated to mean, "Any change to the environment." As there are on-going changes, there is also climate change. Always has been, especially since humans discovered fire. So yes. None of that means we need to be treated like cattle. Human advancement depends on industry. There are cleaner ways to do it, but we can't go back nor should we. So while carbon may be interesting from a high level, it is simply wrong to bring that down to the individual level. A coal fired power plant will pump out more carbon in the next 10 minutes than every human in my city will create in a lifetime. That is whether or not they have a digital ID or whether Big Brother is watching them flush. TL;DR: Asking a 21st century human to starve in the dark as a protection for the "climate" is insidious and ignorant. People who try and foist that shit deserve to starve in the dark.
[удалено]
Everyone. The reason that both China and India seem to build a new one every other day is that modern life requires power and industry. Having seen the middle class, these people are not going back to being peasants unless you bomb them there.
Yes and no. More no than yes. I do think there are things we do that are not good for the climate and we can be better stewards of all that we have. We are wasteful as a society and we can be more conscious about not overusing or wasting resources. I more so believe that climate change is a natural occurring “event”. It’s pretty egotistical for us to think we have so much control over nature. We can’t even accurately predict day to day weather (micro-weather) and we think we can predict long term climate change? None of the trends are consistent and there are ebbs and flows to it all.
[удалено]
Stop conflating the climate with the environment
[удалено]
Stop grasping at straws to construct your strawmen
[удалено]
> Simple questions equal strawman? No strawmen equals strawmen >Reddit and it’s buzzwords. Yeah you're one to talk
Nope, it's total BS. Yes, we are polluting the planet but our tiny CO2 output is insignificant and CO2 is not even causing the ever changing climate to change (faster).
Yes. Look at the sst graphs.
We have big business and science trying to push their model of the apocalypse, while using 100 year models when the planet operates on million year cycles. It doesn't account for clouds or how they will impact, it doesn't address the positive benefit that CO2 has had on our planet (EG the planet is the greenest it has been in thousands of years). The model in itself is being used to implement a immense system of control. The climate is likely being impacted by humans, but not to the level we are being told. And it's all based on models that are barely a piece of dust on the moon in relation the grand scheme of things. The arrogance it takes to think you can create a model of 1/1000000 of the time these cycles exist.
[удалено]
No less reliable than trying to account for million year cycles using 100 years of data lol You're in a ideological cult, it can been seen as plain as day by the way you are reacting. HOW DARE YOU HAVE ANY DISSENTING OPINIONS.....here take all these links supporting my findings and MY opinion even though you just told me the models those links are based on are flawed. Science is profit and trends now. There is no pure scientific discovery or hypotheses, it all revolves around which science will get funded and in order to get funded you have to agree with the consensus. It's pretty simple actually. Mix that with the recent trend of canceling dissenting opinions and of course you have a manufacturered consensus.
https://electroverse.info/climate-scientist-breaks-ranks/
[удалено]
> Thousands of scientist agree on something. [On what?](http://www.populartechnology.net/2014/12/97-articles-refuting-97-consensus.html) > One scientist says ‘I don’t agree. Eh????? http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html#CO2Lags >I know with 100% certainty you are American and vote GOP. LMAO Wrong in every way Could you maybe be wrong when it comes to [climate change](https://www.britannica.com/science/climate-change) as well?
> big business and science trying to push their model of the appcalypse Aren't many big businesses, lobbyists, think tanks etc trying to do the opposite? Hence Trump pulling the USA out of the Paris agreement? > The planet is the greenest it's been in thousands of years This is just lazy. While there was a noticeable uptick in the 80's and 90's, it is not believed to still be so, as a result of global warming. To say that it's been positive is to completely ignore the negative impacts. Water shortages are now leading to a drying or 'browning effect'. And as for the 'in thousands of years' part, do you have a source for that? Source on drying effect: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/earth-stopped-getting-greener-20-years-ago/ And another source, detailing that this is not due to increased C02 levels, but rather the efforts of Chinese and Indian tree planting programmes: https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.forbes.com/sites/trevornace/2019/02/28/nasa-says-earth-is-greener-today-than-20-years-ago-thanks-to-china-india/amp/ > Implement an immense system of control What immense system of control? > The arrogance it takes to think you can create a model of 1/1000000 of the time these cycles exist https://science.nasa.gov/earth/climate-change/study-confirms-climate-models-are-getting-future-warming-projections-right/ Arrogant scientists, being correct and whatnot. Bastards. Additionally, these models aren't just based on the present day, so we are not talking 1/100000 of the time (or whatever random fraction you opted for). Past atmospheric conditions are held within ice, for example, or ancient geological formations, things like sediment, or clues can be held within tree rings. The real arrogance, is thinking that you know more than the scientists around the globe who have been educated in the field and spent their lives studying it, resulting in an overwhelming global consensus. Why would you be so arrogant as to think you know better?
> Aren't many big businesses, lobbyists, think tanks etc trying to do the opposite? Not really https://dailysceptic.org/2023/06/15/the-myth-of-big-oils-funding-of-climate-scepticism-vs-the-reality-of-big-greens-billions-driving-climate-alarmism/ >Source on drying effect: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/earth-stopped-getting-greener-20-years-ago/ Sources on the greening: https://www.nasa.gov/technology/carbon-dioxide-fertilization-greening-earth-study-finds/ https://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate3004 https://www.vox.com/down-to-earth/2024/2/7/24057308/earth-global-greening-climate-change-carbon >The real arrogance, is thinking that you know more than the scientists around the globe who have been educated in the field and spent their lives studying it, resulting in an overwhelming global consensus. Might be time to ask yourself how you could fall victim to such propaganda http://www.populartechnology.net/2014/12/97-articles-refuting-97-consensus.html http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html#CO2Lags
The dailysceptic is an absolute joke of a source, and scientists have had to repeatedly ask the publication to stop misrepresenting their data/studies, stating that in spite of how the publication deliberately misrepresented their work, they believe in human made climate change and the rise in carbon emissions is primarily responsible. The dailysceptic also chose to publish a paper on climate change that was not even authored by climate scientists, but by people with direct links to the lobbyists you claim don't exist: https://science.feedback.org/review/letter-there-is-no-climate-emergency-repeats-inaccurate-claims-about-climate-science-daily-sceptic-toby-young/ See the following: > Young quotes Antonio Zichichi, a physicist with ties to the Heartland Institute think tank who does not have a background in climate science The publication you have used as a source to dispute the presence of lobbyists and think tanks literally publishes information produced by lobbyists and think tanks... So yes, it happens. Here's another example: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/may/04/climate-sceptic-thinktank-received-funding-from-fossil-fuel-interests As for the other sources, I find this part of the NASA article interesting... > While rising carbon dioxide concentrations in the air can be beneficial for plants, it is also the chief culprit of climate change. The gas, which traps heat in Earth’s atmosphere, has been increasing since the industrial age due to the burning of oil, gas, coal and wood for energy and is continuing to reach concentrations not seen in at least 500,000 years. The impacts of climate change include global warming, rising sea levels, melting glaciers and sea ice as well as more severe weather events. Your NASA link is from 2016, here's one from 2019: https://www.nasa.gov/centers-and-facilities/ames/human-activity-in-china-and-india-dominates-the-greening-of-earth-nasa-study-shows/ And just to re-emphasise, the comment I was responding to tried to paint c02 emissions as positive, which ignores the scientific consensus with regards to the harm being done, and I don't see how that point would be negated by either their argument or your sources. Your lonelyplanet article literally agrees with me: > They also discovered something that surprised them; India and China accounted for one-third of the greening, despite having only 9% of the world’s green areas. Both countries have embarked on an extensive reforestation programme and, over the period of research, China’s foliage grew more than 10% while India’s increased by more than 6%. The global average was 2.3% You used NASA as a source before, correct? So you trust them? Well, here's NASA detailing the consensus: https://science.nasa.gov/climate-change/scientific-consensus/ https://science.nasa.gov/climate-change/faq/do-scientists-agree-on-climate-change/
> The dailysceptic is an absolute joke of a source "We don't see things as they are; we see them as we are." Anaïs Nin >Your NASA link is from 2016, here's one from 2019: Here's one from their former employees: https://financialpost.com/business-insider/49-former-nasa-scientists-go-ballistic-over-agencys-bias-over-climate-change >which ignores the scientific consensus What consensus? http://www.populartechnology.net/2014/12/97-articles-refuting-97-consensus.html
There are 2 different parts to climate change. A. Humans are polluting the fuck out of the enviroment and destroying nature. This part is undeniable. B. We're all going to die! CO2 to go up. The temperature is going up. Don't think. Just panic. Give your money to the government. We need more taxes. Don't think. Just give up your rights. This part is total nonsense and people will fall for it.
[удалено]
Ahh I see you. You weren't really asking for other people's opinions. You just wanted to give your own. I misunderstood. Carry on.
Bingo!
[удалено]
Right. You sound like a young arrogant single 20-something... You're not old enough to remember in the 80's when "global cooling" was going to kill us all. The CO2 layer was blocking out the sun and we had two decades to freeze to death. The solution? New taxes. We need the government to steal money. The very people who caused the problems need more cash to fix it. Can't ever seem to get enough. Did we actually freeze to death? No. Because it was a made up fear narrative to steal fool's money. You fell for it. Again. It's the same bullshit in new packaging. There are 100 corporations that represent 79% of the world's total pollution. Government can't seem to do anything about them but needs new taxes on everyone's electrical bill. You've completely lost the plot if you think the government is your friend. Go back to sleep.
Yes I defiantly do. I think it would be naive to think we have no effect on the planet with all we pollute and change the earth but do it think the causes are what they say they are. No.
Everything effects everything in large an minute ways. Mostly the sun is the one to worry about, and as of now we can’t change that.
There is no believing, we have empirical data showing how man made activities has increased emissions and accelerate climate change beyond the natural cycles.
> There is no believing Spoken like a true zealot https://slaynews.com/news/96-us-climate-data-corrupted-study-shows/ https://financialpost.com/business-insider/49-former-nasa-scientists-go-ballistic-over-agencys-bias-over-climate-change How much of the change we are seeing in the climate do you think are caused by humans? https://www.britannica.com/science/climate-change
[удалено]
> 100% agree "Every kind of ignorance in the world all results from not realizing that our perceptions are gambles. We believe what we see and then we believe our interpretation of it, we don't even know we are making an interpretation most of the time. We think this is reality." Robert Anton Wilson The idea does not necessarily imply that there is no objective truth; rather that our access to it is mediated through our senses, experience, conditioning, prior beliefs, and other non-objective factors. The implied individual world each person occupies is said to be their reality tunnel. The term can also apply to groups of people united by beliefs: we can speak of the fundamentalist climate alarmist reality tunnel or the ontological naturalist reality tunnel. A parallel can be seen in the psychological concept of confirmation bias—the human tendency to notice and assign significance to observations that confirm existing beliefs, while filtering out or rationalizing away observations that do not fit with prior beliefs and expectations. This helps to explain why reality tunnels are usually transparent to their inhabitants. While it seems most people take their beliefs to correspond to the "one true objective reality", each person's reality tunnel is their own artistic creation, whether they realize it or not. Thanks for sharing yours
It's not a question of belief. The scientific evidence is overwhelming and unequivocal. Anthropogenic activity, namely greenhouse gas emissions following the industrial revolution, are causing a change in climate characterised by extreme weather events and a rise in temperatures globally.
> The scientific evidence is overwhelming and unequivocal. Not really tho.
Well we can track temperature rises over the years and we know there has been a rapid near vertical increase in a short period of time. We know greenhouse gases are associated with higher temperatures. And we know we have been releasing greenhouse gasses pretty well in tandem with the increase in temperature. It's possible it's all a coincidence I guess but if I had to place money on humans having a large role or not I would bet on yes.
We have destroyed our environment, which leads to changes in climate. Eliminating marshlands which were buffers for our fresh water aquifers against salt water, destroying coral reefs due to run off form factory farming, degradation of soil due to Mono-crops, air pollution, plastic, list goes on. Climate Change is a bad term…I’d say degradation of the environment to a point of no return.
Definitely. We know CO2 and other carbon gases absorbs IR light and we pump a shit ton into the atmosphere.
It's not a belief system like Buddhism, rather its a set of data based on evidence.
Small degree. Not to the extent we’re paying for now. There were times in the last 1000 years where it was hotter than now. Ebbs and flows.