Heyo
Veteran Member
It's not only young folk (though in your eyes I might be young).
Seeing how filtered the news on main stream news is, getting it from people who have a bit more freedom in saying what's really going on isn't such a bad thing.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
CO2 Alarmism
- Thread starter KW
- Start date
Seeing how filtered the news on main stream news is, getting it from people who have a bit more freedom in saying what's really going on isn't such a bad thing.
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
And there's more....
The Forbes Investigation: How Bloom Energy Blew Through Billions Promising Cheap, Green Tech That Falls Short
Follow the (Climate Change) Money
Elites are using climate hysteria to immiserate the working class | Opinion
11 Best Climate Change Stocks To Buy According To Hedge Funds
Father Heathen
Veteran Member
One is about a failed private company, two are politically charged opinion pieces by non-notables coached to parrot the same old mantras, and lastly one about stock recommendations, none of which would explain why all of the world's scientists would collaborate on an vast, convoluted conspiracy, jeopardizing their careers and reputations for no coherent or discernable reason. Disengage from partisan robot mode for a moment, think objectively and critically, and then tell me which is more plausable; all of the world's scientists creating and collaborating on a hoax, or industry lobbyist trying to protect profits?
Here is how the effect goes:-
For natural glacials and interglacials:-
1) Change in orbits create a small increase in the net solar flux.
2) This small increase makes the climate a bit warmer.
3) This causes a slight increase in the ocean temperature.
4) Hotter oceans emit part of the CO2 absorbed in it (as solubility of CO2 in water decreases with temperature).
5) Hotter oceans also emit more water vapour (as evaporation rate increases).
6) The increased CO2 content in the atmosphere and the increased water vapor content in the atmosphere traps more the infrared radiation from being lost to space. So earth heats up more.
7) This increases the temperature of the oceans further which emits more CO2 and water vapor.
8) And the loop continues to create the large rise in temperature that is seen in the prehistorical records.
Thus while the small change in the solar radiation flux initiates the process, 99% of the observed temperature rise is caused by the this self-reinforcing feedback loop between the hot ocean-more Co2 and water vapor-hot atmosphere-hot ocean causal loop.
Now the point of a causal loop is that this loop can be initiated from any of the nodes. During natural warming , it was initiated from initial slight heating of the oceans by increase solar radiation (the external astronomical trigger). But today it is being activated by the human induced increase in CO2 concentration by burning of buried carbon. That is why today the CO2 rise is initiated first before the corresponding increase in atmosphere and sea temperature. The physics remains the same and is well understood.
Comics filter the news most heavily of all.
Whatever & whomever they dislike is skewered
by agenda laden caricature & contempt. It isn't
news. It's an echo chamber of sanctimony.
Regular news...if one consumes a variety of
orientations....is much more useful.
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
Of course I would expect you to say that in wake of the politically charges bias pieces you listed.
I just let the reality speak for itself.
It's critical thinkers that are ignoring you. Are they more liberal than the kind of people that don't think critically? Probably. The easily indoctrinated are going to be the ones who buy into whatever others whom they trust want them to believe, whether that be climate denial, vaccine denial, election integrity denial, and the like, because they lack a defense to indoctrination. They can't tell when they are being snowed.
But you've encountered something different here, which is why you have made no progress. You won't if you can't make a compelling, evidenced argument that rebuts the scientific position, and you haven't. Why do you suppose that is? You probably believe it's because that those people are biased, and you'd be correct. They're biased against belief with insufficient support. This is a rational bias and a very valuable one to hold. If one doesn't know how critical thinkers process data, he won't know why they conclude what they do, or that they can be correct and know it. This is the basis for Dunning-Kruger - the inability to recognize the abilities of others and assume that one's own thinking is just as valid since, after all, everybody's just guessing, choosing what they want to believe based on hopes or feelings like themselves.
If you understood the science you are denying, you would understand what your graph in post #2 is telling you. @sayak83 explained it to you in post #84. Did you understand that?
You also didn't notice how that graph ended. It contradicts your thesis. Clearly the recent CO2 rise has a different mechanism than that in the preceding CO2 spikes, and this rise in CO2 will be the initiating cause of the present global warming to follow.
Nor have you begun to refute the claim that rising CO2 levels are anthropogenic and will cause an artificial warming of the planet. You simply posted data that doesn't rebut that claim. Showing how natural cycles proceeded in the past does not rebut that claim that this anthropogenic process is different and will warm the earth.
**Moved To Site Feedback**
***Mod Post***
Hi KW, nothing wrong with the thread other than that you didn't include any of your own commentary in the op.
As soon as you tell us what you want us to add in we can open the thread back up.
Actually, it would probably work to just edit the commentary from your second post into the op.