210 sats \ 2 replies \ @erict875 19 Feb
I don't know much about the climate science, but when I see how governments around the world have mismanaged the covid crisis with distorted and perverted incentives, there's no way i will ever believe whatever agenda they are pushing.
Do I sound radicalised? 🤔🙄
reply
31 sats \ 0 replies \ @freetx 19 Feb
Also, notice how they all buy beachfront homes....if Obama, et al actually believed we were in imminent threat to climate disaster, why would you choose to live beach front?
For that matter, consider the insurance industry. They would stand to lose trillions of dollars if there were some climatic disaster looming....why would the insurance industry be continuing to write policies for seaside structures?
Its just a scam.
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @positronic_bot 19 Feb
Not radicalized, just lazy.
reply
128 sats \ 0 replies \ @Bell_curve 19 Feb
I have heard other say similar: warming is better than ice age, carbon dioxide sustains life , human , plants etc
Energy consumption is correlated with high standards of living
reply
25 sats \ 0 replies \ @Coinsreporter 19 Feb
Why is that actually happening?
reply
13 sats \ 1 reply \ @anon 19 Feb
Smaller changes in climate like the roman warm period or the little iceage wrecked humanity and had empires like the roman empire rise and fall.
It happened before in the last 3000 years. And you're showing a chart with an x-axis that isn't in the thousands, not even in millions but 4.56 BILLION years ago. Are you stupid or actively malicious?
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @Enemy_of_the_state OP 19 Feb
Just showing you that what you’ve been told just might not be correct. Correlation is not causation, and as you can see, there is not even any correlation on a long enough time scale.
Even if CO2 was a planetary thermostat, that is not a bad thing. A warmer planet is better for humanity in almost every way.
Think of the “climate crisis” as modern day Indulgences for the Church. You peasants have to buy our fish, and abstain from meat, unless you pay the Church extra, while the priests enjoy as much beef as they care to eat 7 days a week. Use public transportation, while we fly the Gulfstream to Epstein island to pick up some toys for a trip on the Super Yacht. History sure seems to rhyme. If you don’t do this, you and the world are going to hell, because The Science has spoken.
reply
100 sats \ 0 replies \ @Bell_curve 19 Feb
Keeling curve?
H2O is the most important global warming gas. The changes in CO2 concentration, in and of themselves, would have a small effect on the Earth’s thermal balance. It’s the feedback effect on water vapor concentration that supposedly magnifies the size of the effect of added CO2. The size of this magnification is hotly disputed. It has been decreasing over the years from the initial estimates.
reply
10 sats \ 2 replies \ @kilianbuhn 19 Feb
Insincere comparison.
Precambrian? Come on man. You can't deny this is insincere. 😑
reply
0 sats \ 1 reply \ @oliverweiss 19 Feb
You don’t trust the measurements of paleozolic people or what?
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @kilianbuhn 20 Feb
They measure the carbon trapped in arctic ice. Don't be unserious.
reply
10 sats \ 0 replies \ @koqoo 19 Feb
Decarbonize = Destabilize
reply
10 sats \ 0 replies \ @zarko 19 Feb
This information is "Brought you by Bill & Melinda Gates"
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @geeknik 19 Feb
https://temperature.global shows a cooling trend up until last year. 🤷🏻♂️
reply
0 sats \ 3 replies \ @nullcount 19 Feb
Ahh yes, every day I thank the dinosaurs for inventing the CO2 guage and thermometer and for keeping such robust records for us to use in our charts.
reply
0 sats \ 2 replies \ @badabing 19 Feb
Indeed, it's a shame science can never learn us things about the past.. Wait, how do you know there were dinosaurs?
Not saying there's any truth to this chart though.
reply
0 sats \ 1 reply \ @nullcount 19 Feb
Science literally cannot tell us anything about the past. Science is about testing a hypothesis in a reproducible way. Then you formulate a general theory based on a validated hypothesis. If your hypothesis requires a time machine to test, it cannot be tested (yet).
Science learns us about the observable world. We can only observe the lack of plant fossils at certain depths in the earth's crust. However, we cannot test any hypothesis that the reason we cannot find plants is because the was less CO2 100 million years ago.
"Scientists" are very sloppy today. They should disclaim everything related to history as an untestable hypothesis.
Even the "fact" that dinos roamed the earth is an unproven hypothesis. Although the observable evidence of large bones in fossils seems to support the hypothesis, it can never be tested and thus there will never be a scientific theory that proves the existence of dinos.
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @badabing 19 Feb
Just because you can't prove smth 100%, doesn't mean there isn't any merit in formulating and taking into account the most probable hypothesis according to scientific research.
Just because there is no 100% evidence of the big bang doesn't mean we should discard this hypothesis entirely and consider Adam and Eve as probable.
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @zarko 19 Feb
$cience
reply