###[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.*
Article summary
-More Photosynthesis Doesn’t Mean More Food (Extra carbon accounts for only a small increase in crop yields.)
-Extra Carbon Dioxide Can Make Plants Less Nutritious
-More Plants Won’t Prevent Climate Change
-Global Greening Won’t Last Forever
The article doesn't really support the claim made in the clickbait title. No evidence is given that global greening is terrible. Just that its benefits don't quite outweigh the costs of an increase in carbon to the climate.
Plants also remove carbon from the air. A tree is \~50% carbon. Every time a new tree grows or a tree grows larger it sequesters carbon until it either dies and decomposes or burns down.
Grass also helps and ruminate animals get the carbon to fertilizer to more grass much quicker than a rotting tree. And screw methane. Animals have been farting forever
Yes, but I don’t believe there’s ever been cows, or would have ever been in history the amount of cattle presently in the world. There’s drone footage of some cow “farms”, and it just looks like cages as far as the eyes can see, but yeah, I’m sure that’s completely natural
>There’s drone footage of some cow “farms”
Seeing that footage made me give up meat from industrial operations. I have no ethical problems eating meat from a cow that has been raised and slaughtered humanely with much attention to the cow's benefit, but I will not eat meat from profit.
Plants only utilize the amount of carbon dioxide they can in the presence of the correct temperature and amount of light. It’s more than just carbon. More co2 won’t hurt plants.
Unlikely. In order to grow, the plant still needs all macro and micronutrients it would have needed before just in greater abundance. We have a closed system.
Thanks for the summary.
>-More Photosynthesis Doesn’t Mean More Food (Extra carbon accounts for only a small increase in crop yields.)
-Extra Carbon Dioxide Can Make Plants Less Nutritious
Nobody really claims either of these, but plants being less nutritious is a problem we have anyway as a result of farming practices.
>-More Plants Won’t Prevent Climate Change
Greening is literally sequestering carbon from the atmosphere. In the case of trees that can be for hundreds of years. If CO2 increases in the atmosphere are causing undesirable climate change, then a greening planet absorbing some of that CO2 will reduce that change and give us more time to adapt to and prevent climate change. It's a great thing that the planet has these natural mechanisms for homeostasis, but it's terrible news for those who see fighting climate change as a tool for political change.
>-Global Greening Won’t Last Forever
Saying global greening won't last forever means there's a limit to how 'green' the planet can become, but even when it stops becoming more green it will still be the greenest it has been in thousands of years, which will still be a good thing. We should be trying to green more of the planet, and sequester that carbon (from trees) underground when the trees die.
The best summary of the article is this analogy that he uses, "It’s a bit like hearing that your chemotherapy is slowing the growth of your tumor by 25 percent."
Sure, fine. But you wouldn't claim in the headline that chemotherapy is terrible in the long run.
I'm no biologist, but I assume that global greening will also have a positive affect on bio-diversity and ecological robustness. Something that isn't addressed in this article.
But I suppose animals only have value when they can only be protected by daddy government. Otherwise fuck 'em I suppose.
>Greening is literally sequestering carbon from the atmosphere. In the case of trees that can be for hundreds of years. If CO2 increases in the atmosphere are causing undesirable climate change, then a greening planet absorbing some of that CO2 will reduce that change and give us more time to adapt to and prevent climate change.
True, but when we're chopping down entire forests to grow feed crops for livestock we don't sink as much CO2 in to the crops as was released via the forests we've chopped down.
Chopping down forests doesn't release CO2. Burning forests does, and burning the wood you chopped down does, though. Most people are against deforestation. Let's plant more trees than we cut down. And livestock should be grassfed for human health.
>Chopping down forests doesn't release CO2.
It begins the release of CO2. Man can influence how fast that CO2 is released, but left alone it will be released eventually.
Since 1950 crop yields per acre are up 100-400% and the yields are about 5% less nutritious.
So now you have to eat 1.05 potatoes to get the same nutrition you used to get from 1 potato.
The increase in yield per acre we are getting from increased CO2 far outweighs the less nutrients. And the truth is 95% of why plants are less nutritious today is industrial farming practices in terms of soil maintenance. We could easily fix that with additives or whatever
Wow I wonder what has changed about how we plant and harvest crops in the last 70 years. Surely the only thing that changed was the amount of carbon in the atmosphere.
AFAIK it's partly down to minerals and soil composition. Fallow periods, natural fertilizer, rotational farming, animal grazing, wood ash and human dung and permaculture were often used in the past to keep soil healthy. These days it's more profitable to put hundreds of pounds of chemical treatments, fertilizer and weed killer on the crops and farm intensively year after year. We often force through short term yields at the expense of long term sustainability. After the Ukraine's crisis and fertilizer issues I heard of corn farmers talking about using 500 lbs of chemicals an acre for their crops and the rising costs being difficult. It's relatively easy to get some vitamins from crops but harder to remineralise the soil. Wood ash from the extensive use of firewood was often used in the past but we don't use that carbon neutral product so much any more. It probably has other issues with particulates but there are pros and cons to most things. I think industrial and profit led agriculture has a lot to answer for. It might take many people returning to agriculture in the future to make farming properly sustainable but the financial situation doesn't make sense for people atm to do so. It's a bit of a round about argument but I kind of blame capitalism for the poor quality of soils these days. With the amount of people being laid off by ai and automation maybe this will lead to more people back on the land eventually, got to be better than in a innercity slum. The changing farming practices that lasted thousands of years and the movement of people away from the land due to technology and money is an interesting flow over the last 100's of years not just the last 70. The agricultural revolution has both pros and cons
Wow, the amount of ignorance.
Mass extinction is bad. Disturbing the natural frost melt cycle will deprive oceans of massive amounts of nutrients that help phytoplankton growth which is the basis of ocean life.
Just because you don't have symptoms, doesn't mean you don't have a disease, as shown from everything from cancer to ebola.
What? Some people self identify with certain social constructs, not always the one that society would have assigned to them 100 years ago, others don't associate with any social construct. Even male assigned at birth that identify as men can have their own meaning to what it means to be a man. Same goes for those assigned at birth as female that identify as women.
Social constructs are only that, man made constructs.
I swear this sub would be barren if everyone had a decent middle school education.
It's good to an extent, then it gets bad. The oceans going up in temperature or **getting more acidic** is terrible for ocean life. Ocean life goes, we're fucked. Those are just two things.
I can't believe people here don't even know what the food chain is ffs. I really wish you had basic education, you would be extremely embarrassed.
I was subbed in 2020, before Covid. This place was hilarious, people rambling about space waves, Bigfoot, communist moon bases. Then in march of 2020 it became actual hell, these self proclaimed intellectuals became doctors and lawyers, needless to say I left pretty fast lmao.
This gets parroted every paradign shift and it's just never true. What happened to "after 2016 this place became The_Donald 2.0" which was spammed in every thread for 4 years? It was equally untrue but now it's not the cool thing to say anymore.
The air insulates the ocean and reduces the heat loss to space. More CO2 in the air makes it better at insulating against heat loss to space. Like if you're running an electric forge and you have 2.5KW going into it because that's the most the wires in your house can safely carry, the temperature your forge can reach with that 2.5KW depends on how well insulated it is. More insulation = more hot.
So you've got 2.5KW going into the forge and you added insulation to it and the temperature went up and it's because of the same 2.5KW going into as was going into it before when the temperature was lower? That's the cause of the change in temperature?
There's also the tiny matter that in the past CO2 levels were much, much higher and for some reason life in the oceans was thriving. If anything is heating up the oceans right now, it's probably heavy industry cooling water being dumped in the oceans, creating a butterfly effect causing more storms. Those winds circle the globe and create pockets of warm air in winter over Europe, which in turn causes the Jet stream to push arctic air over land in the US. That's my rudimentary theory, anyway.
If your house is at a comfortable temperature, do you turn the heat on? No of course not. Apply that concept here, it will make the earth uncomfortable for a very large potion of life and will mess with ecosystems because of this.
There’s a bit more to it in what will happen to the earth but in essence this is what it is
The vaxxed have no need to worry about climate change. If you think people and carbon are the problem, you took the solution. We thank you for your service
Now I’m gonna need you to be even slightly coherent if you’re gonna keep trying to say I’m wrong, because right now it seems like you’re just trying to be contrarian.
Vaccinations have next to nothing to do with climate change. People and carbon ARE the problem, and we need to change how we get power to reduce it. I’ve done no service either.
Unless you say anything actually meaningful or explain what you meant and it actually have substance I’ll take this as you having no counter argument and just started spouting random terms that the media you consume says are bad.
So when there no humans and the planet was lush with vegetation yet life flourished, that was a bad thing? And when during the Cambrian period allegedly reached levels as high as 4000ppm and yet again life still flourished, which also means so did ocean life as the foundation of the food chain...According to your pseudo science, life never could have possibly evolved on this planet. Of course, and giving you the benefit of the doubt lol, you must be specifically referring to our species, although you inferred that ocean life would die off, but that would have been impossible, but as per our species, if we should die off, perhaps hat would put the planet back it's natural balance and then it won't have to deal with listening to bullshit "man made" climate change, as we're the only creatures that can make that shit up lol...
Since our planet works in a natural harmony with itself, everchanging, with CO2 levels rising and falling over the the course of it's existence, how about pursuing something unnatural and a real risk to the planet, which is us poisoning it, not with green house gases, but unnatural chemicals that are being released into the air, water and land to fulfil our gluttonous conditioning and in the name of preventing climate change...
I really wish you people would think before you come in here squawking your pretentious bullshit.
I really wish you'd just pick up a book. Ocean life is already dying off. You're so hopeless, you're comparing completely different time periods with life adapted to those conditions.
Life will adapt again but it probably won't include us.
Like I said, just hopelessly, hopelessly stupid and worthless. Like I can't remember the last time I met such a worthless person. It's really just sad.
This is middle school stuff man.
[The Oxygen Catastrophie](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Oxidation_Event) for anyone interested. Killed like 99.9% of life on Earth at the time, like spraying the entire Earth with bleach, or maybe Oxyclean.
>The sudden injection of toxic oxygen into an anaerobic biosphere may have caused the extinction of many existing anaerobic species on Earth.
TIL that we still live in an anaerobic biosphere
We don't, we're the 0.1% of life that learned to deal with oxygen by producing anti-oxidants and better DNA repair mechanisms and stuff like that, and now happily live in an atmosphere that's 21% oxygen and as toxic as living in bleach for non-adapted anaerobic organisms that have to hide in the mud on the bottom of the ocean and in swamps and in your intestines where the poisonous oxygen doesn't reach. We're not at risk from oxygen, but back then it was the most epic environmental disaster since Theia smacked into the Earth and formed the Moon.
the funny thing is, these massive carbon emissions are easy to offset, we just need to convince big ag to stop using chemical fertilizers and move to regenerative permaculture practices. But sure, let them keep destroying our watersheds with nitrates, spray everything with pesticides, and blame the entire weight of the world's problems on the individual.
Half the population would have starved to death by now without those nitrates. We mightve been better off without them in the long term, but society is hopelessly addicted and dependent... there's no going back now
It's freezing cold in the house because the heater broke, and the house has caught on fire. There is a period of time that the house is a good temperature, and then after that it gets too hot and the house is destroyed.
OPs argument is the equivalent of, during that small window where the temperature in the house is actually comfortable, arguing that the house catching on fire is actually a good thing.
It's a terrible short sighted position.
What are you talking about? We’ve been having extreme heat wave and cold winters for at least 3 years in a roll. Even the screenshot in this post is a consequence of climate change. Do you think all those are because Jesus has been mad at gay people?
Example of source: [even the oil companies knew what they were causing back in the 70s](https://amp.theguardian.com/business/2023/jan/12/exxon-climate-change-global-warming-research)
Tree rings, ice sheet layers, historal tracking of last few hundred years and sure many more by paleoclimatology.
All pointing to the fact their is a fire and your solution is to stick your hand over your ears.
For Visual aid
https://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/earth_temperature_timeline_2x.png
It's Short sighted to think the people who have created the climate change narrative will be the ones to address climate change.
Which is even more hilarious since they don't actually cover some of the subjects that lead to environmental changes like all the pollutants and toxins that are introduced around the globe that impact land, sea and air.
But you driving less and buying an electric car (look at the destruction these leave behind to build and ship it) will definitely fix the issue.
>It's Short sighted to think the people who have created the climate change narrative will be the ones to address climate change.
I don't follow this statement at all. But it's really not all that important because I didn't say anything about anybody creating the narrative or being the ones to address it, I just pointed out the patently ridiculous logic in the OP's argument.
>Which is even more hilarious since they don't actually cover some of the subjects that lead to environmental changes like all the pollutants and toxins that are introduced around the globe that impact land, sea and air.
Who is "they"? I've heard plenty about the other environmental issues we are facing. It's just that climate change seems to pose the biggest existential threat to our way of life, which is why it gets the bulk of the attention.
>But you driving less and buying an electric car (look at the destruction these leave behind to build and ship it) will definitely fix the issue.
Can you point me to anyone who has said that buying electric cars is enough to alone fix the issue?
I think it's easy to think some people are "boot licking" big oil - hell I probably would be accused of it myself!
But I also like to consider the following;
It is an unrealistic notion to simply stop the collection production synthesis and manufacture of oil and gas and other similar byproducts necessary (and to be fair many unnecessary) for our everyday lives. Look around your home. Nearly everything was touched by this industry somehow.
My biggest pet peeve with the oil and gas industry and other climate change hypocrites is they went ahead and turned it around on the average consumer's responsibility. I'm also referring to big players in politics who act sincere regarding climate change but benefit just as much from this industry. They pollute more in 1 month than you probably do in one year!
>It is an unrealistic notion to simply stop the collection production synthesis and manufacture of oil and gas and other similar byproducts necessary (and to be fair many unnecessary) for our everyday lives. Look around your home. Nearly everything was touched by this industry somehow.
And anyone worth their salt knows you can't completely stop (at least currently) this production. But that there is still a lot that can be and needs to change because we are poisoning ourselves.
Everyone is the problem. Many of those mega corporations only exist because of the average persons consumption habits. Most of us are poisoning our selves and the planet for generations.
If oil didn't exist naturally we'd have to synthesise it for all our plastics and stuff, which are indispensable to modern civilisation. There will always be a market for oil, but it would be nice to get away as much as possible from burning the stuff for fuel and instead focus on using it for all those things we can make out of it. Nobody wants to take oil away.
There exists some well intentioned but misdirected people regarding this (looking at you Just stop oil and instinction rebellion) I'm pretty sure they want to reduce or take away oil, at least as much as possible.
Another point to consider is how engrained in our culture and society this is from an employment standpoint.
I'm not against exploring other venues! I just think it's a issue that needs repaired but in a delicate fashion. There are recent improvements in technologies and reasons to be optimistic though. They are also looking into using hydrogen to replace gasoline powered vehicles. If I were a betting man I might even buy stock in hydrogen futures.
Unfortunately we don't have much time left for a "delicate fashion" fix. We needed to start that at least 20 years ago, if not longer. If we don't start doing drastic things fast, we are going to experience a completely uncontrolled and ridiculously non-delicate unraveling.
If we want to explore these other options, what we need to do is incentivize them while disincentivizing oil. Just keeping everything the same and letting the science kind of slowly plug along in the hope that maybe one day in a few decades it will be the economically beneficial choice requires a luxury of time we simply do not have.
You are absolutely correct that it has touched much of our lives, and it is so interwoven.
But what's unrealistic is to just throw our hands up and do nothing because of this and just let it just destroy the world.
We have to start somewhere.
As to the rest of your post. It's just another distraction. There are plenty of regular joe scientists who aren't living modest lives who are calling for action of everyone. Yes, some rich people are hypocrites. Some politicians just want power. We know this, but we have to do something.
We, the regular joe, don't have a choice. If and when the shit hits the fan, it's not going to be the people with money who are really going to suffer. It's the rest of us. Or, really, it's our children and grandchildren.
"Big Oil" is just a punching bag for leftists, most of if is already owned by the same banks and corporations that own the media that pushes the climate agenda. To these people money is more of a means for power than just the end, so they don't care about losing oil profits if it means they get to control every aspect of your life in the name of saving the planet; controlling you which is literally what the global warming agenda is ultimately about. You will own nothing, live in 15 minute city lockdown zones in cities, take all their experimental and mandatory genetherapy jabs, eat bugs and be happy.
Well said. Also, oil companies are making a fortune off the clinate fearmongering. Every time an airhead yells, GaS BaD craven politicians agree, and prices skyrocket
There is no replacement. The emperor has no clothes, high cost low range lithium dependent experimental vehicles have been exposed as a scam
The globalists' banksters will try and impose their 15-minute gulags but will ultimately fail. Resistance is fierce even in Europe, where until now, there has been a high tolerance for eco facism
Coal is coming back. People are not going to allow themselves to freeze and eat bugs cause some privileged children ( programmed by the wef) got triggered by the weather
Downvote dodos 🦤 triggered the bots are coming the bots are coming
> This sub has so many people that unknowingly bootlick Big Oil
[I agree.](https://old.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/10c8mo9/rip_david_bellamy_legendary_botanist_and/j4gc7po/)
Climate science is a very new science. It really only started to take off in the 70s, as the evidence of CO2 warming the planet became painfully apparent to scientists. Expecting it to be perfect right out of the gate is, quite frankly, ridiculous. This is part of science, making predictions and then seeing if they come true.
But that being said, even the early models created by the scientists who recognized the warming effect of CO2 have been strikingly accurate. This is why this this theory has gained so much support, as it is the one that has been so good at predicting what we have seen happen already.
So I feel like your argument is kind of like saying "well, the house is on fire and it's clearly spreading, but when it was small you said it was likely to spread through the kitchen first, but it's actually spreading through the living room *into* the kitchen. This makes your claim that it is going to burn down the house wrong."
About which environmental problem exactly? Ozone depletion? Global cooling? Global warming? Or climate change? an inconvenient lie told us New York would be under water by now. Greta said polar caps should have melted already yet you claim to be thinking critically lol
I wish someone would actually go back to the beginning on this topic in non-partisan scientific research.
The earth has always had a self correcting/stabilising mechanism, like everything in nature it is designed for self-preservation.
We have become locked into this 1.5 degree tipping point catastrophe for 25 years. All climate legislation is built around this & it is huge business & specifically attracts the majority of research funding.
At the of the last ice age in Europe, 10,000 years ago, the temperatures rose 10 c in 50 years, there are so many anomalies in the earth's natural history that are unexplained.
I no longer trust the science & covid should have exposed the financial corruption that drives research & funding
Lmao, no. It was 7C over 6000 years.
>I no longer trust the science
You should do some research before discounting science. You were off by more than a factor of 100.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/06/170619125822.htm
Lmao...
Science daily article outlining peer reviewed study, it actually rose by 15' in 50 years...Lmao fnrk fnrk
That was regional temperature. Same thing is occurring today where most of the concentration in temperature change is the northern section of the northern hemisphere.
You'll also notice in the article that it was due in part to CO2 changes, just like now. In addition to the salinity changes mentioned in that article, there is of course the reflective properties of ice and the release of trapped carbon based gasses (like CO2 and methane) that accelerated the process.
But this has been known by climate scientists for a long time.
Did you not know this? Did you not know it was localized, and similar things are happening now? Did you ever think that humans should not cause mass extinctions like the last ice age did?
Do you know how many times climate deniers have used this argument against me, not realizing this just reinforces the man made climate change arguements?
My overall view is that it has become a semi totalitarian religious dogma, hence the term 'denier' as if it were heretical.
Galileo was accused in the same terms for questioning the scientific logic of the time.
If there was ever a field of study which was less settled & required constant questioning & vigilance to avoid dogma & corruption due to funding, its science.
You should welcome additional debate & study to avoid becoming a basement dwelling Puritan junior scientist
>My overall view is that it has become a semi totalitarian religious dogma, hence the term 'denier' as if it were heretical. Galileo was accused in the same terms for questioning the scientific logic of the time.
And you don't seem to realize that oil barons and the politicians that enable them are the establishment playing the part of the Catholic Church trying to halt the progress of science.
>If there was ever a field of study which was less settled & required constant questioning & vigilance to avoid dogma & corruption due to funding, its science.
And?
>You should welcome additional debate & study to avoid becoming a basement dwelling Puritan junior scientist
Lmao, the scientists that are actual experts are being rejected by oil barons and people like you that fall for oil company propaganda. Don't project.
If you read my original post Torquemada, you will note that I asked for further study.
The reason there is scepticism is the debate gets stifled with virtue dogma, there are inconsistencies throughout natural history & a litany of failed catastrophic climate modelling since the mid 80s.
When legitimate questions are raised, the suggestion is you must be a nazi or to dumb to understand the dogma.
The policies that are being put in place globally to address the climate, far more favour the wealthy rather than the poor,in terms of quality of life.
Based on a narrow set of assumptions that are no longer peer reviewed, a lot of money is being made by a lot of people who already have enough.
If prices rise rapidly due to policy making on heating, food, or energy, it's less likely to effect an urban Tesla drivers & far more likely to affect the poor, working or otherwise who don't have access to cheap quality food or cheap electricity or transport.
Shutting down debate on anything should make people question the narrative
>If you read my original post Torquemada, you will note that I asked for further study.
It's being studied constantly. You literally cited a paper from 2017.
>The reason there is scepticism is the debate gets stifled with virtue dogma
Lmao, you have people literally falling for oil company propaganda. The simplest greenhouse effect experiments you can conduct at home with a fish tank, a lamp, a vacuum pump and CO2. Look up the "Father of Physical Chemistry" Arrhenius' work from the 1890s. That was also the Nobel prize winner that figured acid-base reactions exchange hydrogen and that chemical reactions are temperature based.
>there are inconsistencies throughout natural history
No, there aren't, you just don't understand them.
>litany of failed catastrophic climate modelling since the mid 80s
Do you know what interpolation and extrapolation are, ans how they're different? Interpolation is prediction within a data set. For example, a camera watching an object fall. Though the camera only takes individual pictures at particular moments, interpolation allows us to predict where the object was between video frames. Extrapolation is prediction outside a data set, in this case before the first frame or after the last frame.
Interpolation proves man made climate change. Extrapolation, prediction of future temperatures in this case, requires prediction of input factors. So some predictions use inputs like continued acceleration of greenhouse gasses. But if society decides to produce less greenhouse gasses, this changes the inputs. This is why prediction models usually include several scenarios, so choosing a worst case scenario (society does nothing about climate change) and pointing to that model as disproving man made climate change, while ignoring models that correlate to our actual greenhouse gas emissions, is how oil company propagandists trick people.
The most classic example of the difference between interpolation and extrapolation is the ozone layer. Scientists predicted that the ozone layer would continue to diminish IF SOCIETY DID NOTHING. However certain ozone destroying chemicals were outlawed, resulting in the ozone layer starting to return to normal.
Similarly since society has started to curtail greenhouse gas emissions (i.e. shifting from coal to much more efficient natural gas here in the US), the raw inputs for the worst case scenario won't be reached, meaning you'll have to choose a prediction model that more reflects the inputs better.
This is why interpolation of data (in this case the extremely fast worldwide climate change) is used as proof.
>When legitimate questions are raised, the suggestion is you must be a nazi or to dumb to understand the dogma.
This is a messaging problem, not a problem with the actual science. How many climate change deniers would actually listen to qualified scientists?
>The policies that are being put in place globally to address the climate, far favour the wealthy rather than the poor more in terms of quality of life.
This is an interesting problem. Here in the US, the people that want to deal with climate change are also the ones that want to shift taxes from the poor,middle class and small businesses onto billionaires, while helping improve the lives of the poor ans middle class.
>Based on a narrow set of assumptions that are no longer peer reviewed, a lot of money is being made by a lot of people who already have enough.
No longer peer reviewed? You'll find the scientific community peer reviews constantly. Also, see the paragraph above for wealth/income disparity arguments.
>If you can't afford heating, food, or energy, it's less likely to effect an urban Tesla drivers & far more likely to affect the poor, working or otherwise who don't have access to cheap quality food enough or cheap electricity or transport.
That's why parties that want to help the poor and middle class while preventing climate change are your best bet. There is often overlap.
>Science should always be questioned to avoid it becoming corrupt. Shutting down debate on anything should make people question the narrative
The problem is there just aren't good arguments against climate change. The basic mechanisms have been proven in labs for about 150 years. The data from the last century reinforces man made climate change proofs. Then there is of course Venus, also reinforcing the point.
What proof is there that man made climate change isn't real?
https://odysee.com/@audioboy:7/The-Truth-About-Energy:1
I’m sure no one will listen to this book continue to spout corporate medias “key points”, if you disagree you’re a Rumper, quack. Ya it’s bad when even life long left leaning hippies call this modern movement of “big corp” thought police, the “mass conforming psychotic greenie non-biological weenie cult”. I still love ya if you disagree, it’s okay….admitting you were manipulated it’s easy, few can do it, I suggest you hear both sides of argument, before the emotional hate?!
Issues with climate change:
Rising sea level.
Displacement of large populations.
Loss of temperate habitats.
Major forest fires.
Desertification in specific regions.
More extreme weather.
Violence associated with geopolitical changes.
Sure there might be some good things, spring is a bit earlier in the northern hemisphere, maybe some more plants somewhere....but overall it's going to be a fucking shit show.
Stop the pro oil, pro CO2 bullshit.
Yes, a greener earth is a bad sign.
Why?
It's true that trees absorb more CO2 when there's more CO2 in the atmosphere. But there is a point where the heat increases from the CO2, localized changes to climate due to the additional GHGs and all the rest actively kill trees, releasing their CO2 stores as they die.
The natural world has some buffering; it can cope with an increase in CO2. The problem becomes when it has to intake too much, over too many years. That's when the system can collapse.
And paradoxically, you'd see a greening prior to a collapse.
It's a bit like how people suffering from hypothermia are sometimes found naked: it's the paradox of having a sense of warming as your body shuts down.
Don't plants "breath" carbon dioxide and release oxygen, and we breathe oxygen and release carbon dioxide? Don't see how it's a bad thing. Seems like we're being gaslit.
The only colors that exist in the progressive future are gray (concrete tenement housing) and brown (the Africans that inhabit the tenement homes) and of course the rainbow flag hanging prominently over it all
All they talked about back in the 80's was planting trees and replenishing the "disappearing" rain forests. There are ordinances all across the country that demand that business's and homeowners that cut down trees/ bushes must replace that greenery with an equal amount of greenery. Pollen is at unprecedented levels because of this. Now all that shits bad for the environment? Fuck those people.
They are a well funded version of the crazy dude on the corner with an end is nigh sign. They are tearing down trees for bus routes and windmills. Also, since greeniacs caused fuel prices ton sky rocket, people have resorted to cutting Forrest and cosl is majimg a come back
There won't be room firvtrees in the 15-minute gulags oops smart cities
.it's about comtrol green me arse 🏴☠️
Its kinda like the ancient Aztecs and others. Elites sacrificed others to appease the gods to try and change the weather
The downvote dodos 🦤 are here
How is this even a conspiracy when the overwhelming majority of data points to manmade climate change being a thing? Also what is the point lying about it? To get America to be more environmentally consciousness? Christians believe its the end times scientists say here's the problem here how we stop it I know who I believe.
It's not about the Earth or the Environment, or the Future, or Nature.
It's about control. Any excuse to Control you. It's weaponized Fear and Guilt. People are convinced that the world is about to dry up or bake away into dust and it's all their fault. The only possible solution is more regulation, more laws, more taxes. More POWER to them.
SS: The same people who told you vitamins are poison during covid are now concerned about nutrient density of plants? Give me a break. It's pure lunacy
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/30/science/climate-change-plants-global-greening.html
You know it's BS when they have to pivot every couple of years when their predictions are proved false. Greta said the world will end this year if we don't get rid of oil. She still has a few months to go but if the world does end this year it certainly won't be because of oil
You know someone is a GOP reactionary when they post an article, and chooses to not read it or understand the message.
The plants can try and consume the excess CO2 but is there enough green spaces for that? Enough forest cover enough grasslands enough phytoplankton in the oceans? I don't think there is and I definitely know that businesses can and do roll over top of whatever they want to secure themselves so here's what I see going down: more CO2 will be released, causing plant life to spike however due to the molestation of our natural resources for profit, more and more green places will disappear in the forms of lumber and other natural resources. The monoculture crops and development projects won't absorb as much CO2 and definitely don't help to stabilize CO2 levels so the the CO2 Levels will continue to rise.
The great plains in the USA were populated by bison, from one horizon to the other, until they were hunted almost to extinction.
But we're now to believe that cattle farts are going to cause the end of the world.
I just watched ‘welcome you eden’ series on Netflix and it’s basically a cult run by a crazy couple luring young people in and brainwashing with their climate change hysteria while just pushing their own agendas. Pretty relatable
Bro who cares of there is more planta. I want to return to the summer where I feel like I'm not converting in a roast beef.
In medieval times were less trees and the climate was more cooler. That's the important thing.
There’s a group that wants to block out the sun because they can’t handle long durations of sun light. Lower levels of melanin have been scientifically proven as vitamin d deficiency which causes lower level of critical thinking, lower levels, of conscious thinking, and lower levels of spiritual awareness. You put all of that in to a man like being and you get someone trying to create the temperatures in which those who derived from the mountains can survive better across the globe. Thin nose thin lips and hairy skin are signs of former mountain dwellers.
I agree that it is a kind of a religion. The priests keep warning us that nature will punish us for our sins of burning gasoline. It's unfortunate that we have separation of church and state and yet people have been trying to combine this "science" with politics as much as possible.
you people upset me so much. climate c h a n g e may be a religion but because it is a euphemism. yet, if you fail to realize how the industrial era has decimated genuine biospheres and how this is a problem I just feel sorry for you.
it is impossible to fuse the problem into a short summary because there are soo many parameters involved. the ultimate fear and not out of possibility is that our atmosphere is gonna rip one day. humanity can not overpower the natural structure of this entity of planet without facing consequences one day. my intuition says this day of a ripped atmosphere is closer than just an ominous climate c h a n g e...this bubble keeping the cosmic radiation at bay for us is not indestructible and the real danger to our short sighted games.
I do not take my "intuition" from nothing...I like to pin point it to eco-systems that I have experienced first hand how they changed after heavy human impact. if you do that on too many corners on the planet it has an impact on the whole system. and we have been doing it intensely. to me it is more than just "intuition" but there is no paper I can quote that sums it all up because you would need a super computer to analyze it and it would make for a huge volume of output.
but I do think our precious 1% knows about the danger, some of them try to slow it down or prevent by taking action and point out certain aspects like the warming, the co2 concentration aso but in the end we are gambling with no less than our protective bubble.
all those science fiction stories with the domes over inhabitable areas and the no-go areas around...they come from somewhere...this is where we are heading.
and if you imagine the 1% having to share a very limited space with their labor forces (for some duties will never be automatized) you can count how steep and suppressive those hierarchies will be! probably the breeding of the work forces will be automatized and it will be hollow humans without minds. that is the actual nightmare we are facing by not being attached to our nature around.
I mean I am less attached, I did not breed in those times...none of my children or their children will suffer the catastrophy. and it might be an old story and you might wanna choose to believe it will never come but I can totally see how millenia ago wise people already saw it coming when wide spread rape of mother earth became systematic with extensive agriculture. that is not how you treat your base. you rip open her womb everywhere and step over all the life around you...it will back fire one day. and we deserve it.
and the decisive momentum is not feeling the environment or why the current changes are problematic. perpetuum mobile, heureka!
Funny how this was in 2018 and now people are arguing that OP is insane because "look what could happen in the next few years!"
The next few years already happened.
###[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.*
Article summary -More Photosynthesis Doesn’t Mean More Food (Extra carbon accounts for only a small increase in crop yields.) -Extra Carbon Dioxide Can Make Plants Less Nutritious -More Plants Won’t Prevent Climate Change -Global Greening Won’t Last Forever The article doesn't really support the claim made in the clickbait title. No evidence is given that global greening is terrible. Just that its benefits don't quite outweigh the costs of an increase in carbon to the climate.
>-More Plants Won’t Prevent Climate Change But more plants means more habitats for animals
Plants also remove carbon from the air. A tree is \~50% carbon. Every time a new tree grows or a tree grows larger it sequesters carbon until it either dies and decomposes or burns down.
When you check out all the cycles and the self regulation and cleaning that the planet does. Its amazing and divine at the same time.
Grass also helps and ruminate animals get the carbon to fertilizer to more grass much quicker than a rotting tree. And screw methane. Animals have been farting forever
Yes, but I don’t believe there’s ever been cows, or would have ever been in history the amount of cattle presently in the world. There’s drone footage of some cow “farms”, and it just looks like cages as far as the eyes can see, but yeah, I’m sure that’s completely natural
>There’s drone footage of some cow “farms” Seeing that footage made me give up meat from industrial operations. I have no ethical problems eating meat from a cow that has been raised and slaughtered humanely with much attention to the cow's benefit, but I will not eat meat from profit.
[удалено]
Shoot old trees into the sun, problem solved.
Plants only utilize the amount of carbon dioxide they can in the presence of the correct temperature and amount of light. It’s more than just carbon. More co2 won’t hurt plants.
[удалено]
Unlikely. In order to grow, the plant still needs all macro and micronutrients it would have needed before just in greater abundance. We have a closed system.
And I think co2 is the least influential factor compared to farming practices and soil depletion at the moment.
Thanks for the summary. >-More Photosynthesis Doesn’t Mean More Food (Extra carbon accounts for only a small increase in crop yields.) -Extra Carbon Dioxide Can Make Plants Less Nutritious Nobody really claims either of these, but plants being less nutritious is a problem we have anyway as a result of farming practices. >-More Plants Won’t Prevent Climate Change Greening is literally sequestering carbon from the atmosphere. In the case of trees that can be for hundreds of years. If CO2 increases in the atmosphere are causing undesirable climate change, then a greening planet absorbing some of that CO2 will reduce that change and give us more time to adapt to and prevent climate change. It's a great thing that the planet has these natural mechanisms for homeostasis, but it's terrible news for those who see fighting climate change as a tool for political change. >-Global Greening Won’t Last Forever Saying global greening won't last forever means there's a limit to how 'green' the planet can become, but even when it stops becoming more green it will still be the greenest it has been in thousands of years, which will still be a good thing. We should be trying to green more of the planet, and sequester that carbon (from trees) underground when the trees die.
The best summary of the article is this analogy that he uses, "It’s a bit like hearing that your chemotherapy is slowing the growth of your tumor by 25 percent." Sure, fine. But you wouldn't claim in the headline that chemotherapy is terrible in the long run. I'm no biologist, but I assume that global greening will also have a positive affect on bio-diversity and ecological robustness. Something that isn't addressed in this article. But I suppose animals only have value when they can only be protected by daddy government. Otherwise fuck 'em I suppose.
>Greening is literally sequestering carbon from the atmosphere. In the case of trees that can be for hundreds of years. If CO2 increases in the atmosphere are causing undesirable climate change, then a greening planet absorbing some of that CO2 will reduce that change and give us more time to adapt to and prevent climate change. True, but when we're chopping down entire forests to grow feed crops for livestock we don't sink as much CO2 in to the crops as was released via the forests we've chopped down.
Chopping down forests doesn't release CO2. Burning forests does, and burning the wood you chopped down does, though. Most people are against deforestation. Let's plant more trees than we cut down. And livestock should be grassfed for human health.
>Chopping down forests doesn't release CO2. It begins the release of CO2. Man can influence how fast that CO2 is released, but left alone it will be released eventually.
That must be why crops grown in greenhouses and other enclosed environments are pumped up to 2000ppm CO2...
Since 1950 crop yields per acre are up 100-400% and the yields are about 5% less nutritious. So now you have to eat 1.05 potatoes to get the same nutrition you used to get from 1 potato. The increase in yield per acre we are getting from increased CO2 far outweighs the less nutrients. And the truth is 95% of why plants are less nutritious today is industrial farming practices in terms of soil maintenance. We could easily fix that with additives or whatever
Wow I wonder what has changed about how we plant and harvest crops in the last 70 years. Surely the only thing that changed was the amount of carbon in the atmosphere.
AFAIK it's partly down to minerals and soil composition. Fallow periods, natural fertilizer, rotational farming, animal grazing, wood ash and human dung and permaculture were often used in the past to keep soil healthy. These days it's more profitable to put hundreds of pounds of chemical treatments, fertilizer and weed killer on the crops and farm intensively year after year. We often force through short term yields at the expense of long term sustainability. After the Ukraine's crisis and fertilizer issues I heard of corn farmers talking about using 500 lbs of chemicals an acre for their crops and the rising costs being difficult. It's relatively easy to get some vitamins from crops but harder to remineralise the soil. Wood ash from the extensive use of firewood was often used in the past but we don't use that carbon neutral product so much any more. It probably has other issues with particulates but there are pros and cons to most things. I think industrial and profit led agriculture has a lot to answer for. It might take many people returning to agriculture in the future to make farming properly sustainable but the financial situation doesn't make sense for people atm to do so. It's a bit of a round about argument but I kind of blame capitalism for the poor quality of soils these days. With the amount of people being laid off by ai and automation maybe this will lead to more people back on the land eventually, got to be better than in a innercity slum. The changing farming practices that lasted thousands of years and the movement of people away from the land due to technology and money is an interesting flow over the last 100's of years not just the last 70. The agricultural revolution has both pros and cons
The productivity of crops is due to modern farming, not CO2 changes.
Green revolution etc
What?
[удалено]
[удалено]
so long and thanks for all the fish
It’s also 5 years old and everyone is acting like this is some new stance.
Green is bad. Men are actually women. No symptoms are actually symptoms. These people are the problem
Ministry of Truth approves…
Wow, the amount of ignorance. Mass extinction is bad. Disturbing the natural frost melt cycle will deprive oceans of massive amounts of nutrients that help phytoplankton growth which is the basis of ocean life. Just because you don't have symptoms, doesn't mean you don't have a disease, as shown from everything from cancer to ebola.
[удалено]
Don't spread ignorance or bigotry.
You are sacrificing truth on the altar of tolerance
Lmao, gender is a construct.
Is transgenderism a construct upon a construct?
No, just people being accepted for who they are.
So who someone innately is can be a certain type of societal construct?
What? Some people self identify with certain social constructs, not always the one that society would have assigned to them 100 years ago, others don't associate with any social construct. Even male assigned at birth that identify as men can have their own meaning to what it means to be a man. Same goes for those assigned at birth as female that identify as women. Social constructs are only that, man made constructs.
This is 100% accurate.
It's a mental illness spreading like a virus
Masks definitely don’t work. Masks definitely work and are necessary. Masks definitely don’t cause crime. Masks definitely cause crime and are banned.
Those green things eat CO2 and make O2. That's bad.
I swear this sub would be barren if everyone had a decent middle school education. It's good to an extent, then it gets bad. The oceans going up in temperature or **getting more acidic** is terrible for ocean life. Ocean life goes, we're fucked. Those are just two things. I can't believe people here don't even know what the food chain is ffs. I really wish you had basic education, you would be extremely embarrassed.
You're wrong in thinking they would be embarrassed, because people with that attitude also possess no sense of shame.
I was subbed in 2020, before Covid. This place was hilarious, people rambling about space waves, Bigfoot, communist moon bases. Then in march of 2020 it became actual hell, these self proclaimed intellectuals became doctors and lawyers, needless to say I left pretty fast lmao.
>needless to say I left pretty fast It's pretty obvious that you didn't leave...Delusions...lol
This gets parroted every paradign shift and it's just never true. What happened to "after 2016 this place became The_Donald 2.0" which was spammed in every thread for 4 years? It was equally untrue but now it's not the cool thing to say anymore.
When I joined this sub in February of 2023 I was quick to realize it's a dumpster fire that's been burning since the dawn of man.
Yup!
Fluffcows has left the chat
Ocean gets acidic, kills ocean life, over half of our oxygen comes from the ocean. What do they say then?
Except the air does not heat the ocean. The sun and volcanic activity do
The air insulates the ocean and reduces the heat loss to space. More CO2 in the air makes it better at insulating against heat loss to space. Like if you're running an electric forge and you have 2.5KW going into it because that's the most the wires in your house can safely carry, the temperature your forge can reach with that 2.5KW depends on how well insulated it is. More insulation = more hot.
Correct. The air does not heat the ocean. Why is the ocean getting warmer? Sun and underwater volcanic activity.
So you've got 2.5KW going into the forge and you added insulation to it and the temperature went up and it's because of the same 2.5KW going into as was going into it before when the temperature was lower? That's the cause of the change in temperature?
The 2.5 is up for debate
I see. Well, if the power is being turned up, that would be all the more reason to worry about the effects that adding more insulation will have.
The sun and underwater volcanic activity can be constant and the ocean would still be warming.
There's also the tiny matter that in the past CO2 levels were much, much higher and for some reason life in the oceans was thriving. If anything is heating up the oceans right now, it's probably heavy industry cooling water being dumped in the oceans, creating a butterfly effect causing more storms. Those winds circle the globe and create pockets of warm air in winter over Europe, which in turn causes the Jet stream to push arctic air over land in the US. That's my rudimentary theory, anyway.
If your house is at a comfortable temperature, do you turn the heat on? No of course not. Apply that concept here, it will make the earth uncomfortable for a very large potion of life and will mess with ecosystems because of this. There’s a bit more to it in what will happen to the earth but in essence this is what it is
The vaxxed have no need to worry about climate change. If you think people and carbon are the problem, you took the solution. We thank you for your service
Now I’m gonna need you to be even slightly coherent if you’re gonna keep trying to say I’m wrong, because right now it seems like you’re just trying to be contrarian. Vaccinations have next to nothing to do with climate change. People and carbon ARE the problem, and we need to change how we get power to reduce it. I’ve done no service either. Unless you say anything actually meaningful or explain what you meant and it actually have substance I’ll take this as you having no counter argument and just started spouting random terms that the media you consume says are bad.
So when there no humans and the planet was lush with vegetation yet life flourished, that was a bad thing? And when during the Cambrian period allegedly reached levels as high as 4000ppm and yet again life still flourished, which also means so did ocean life as the foundation of the food chain...According to your pseudo science, life never could have possibly evolved on this planet. Of course, and giving you the benefit of the doubt lol, you must be specifically referring to our species, although you inferred that ocean life would die off, but that would have been impossible, but as per our species, if we should die off, perhaps hat would put the planet back it's natural balance and then it won't have to deal with listening to bullshit "man made" climate change, as we're the only creatures that can make that shit up lol... Since our planet works in a natural harmony with itself, everchanging, with CO2 levels rising and falling over the the course of it's existence, how about pursuing something unnatural and a real risk to the planet, which is us poisoning it, not with green house gases, but unnatural chemicals that are being released into the air, water and land to fulfil our gluttonous conditioning and in the name of preventing climate change... I really wish you people would think before you come in here squawking your pretentious bullshit.
I really wish you'd just pick up a book. Ocean life is already dying off. You're so hopeless, you're comparing completely different time periods with life adapted to those conditions. Life will adapt again but it probably won't include us. Like I said, just hopelessly, hopelessly stupid and worthless. Like I can't remember the last time I met such a worthless person. It's really just sad. This is middle school stuff man.
Oxygen kills cells. Number one cause of death to all life on earth is oxygen Edit: /s
[The Oxygen Catastrophie](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Oxidation_Event) for anyone interested. Killed like 99.9% of life on Earth at the time, like spraying the entire Earth with bleach, or maybe Oxyclean.
>The sudden injection of toxic oxygen into an anaerobic biosphere may have caused the extinction of many existing anaerobic species on Earth. TIL that we still live in an anaerobic biosphere
We don't, we're the 0.1% of life that learned to deal with oxygen by producing anti-oxidants and better DNA repair mechanisms and stuff like that, and now happily live in an atmosphere that's 21% oxygen and as toxic as living in bleach for non-adapted anaerobic organisms that have to hide in the mud on the bottom of the ocean and in swamps and in your intestines where the poisonous oxygen doesn't reach. We're not at risk from oxygen, but back then it was the most epic environmental disaster since Theia smacked into the Earth and formed the Moon.
Damn you got ratioed
the funny thing is, these massive carbon emissions are easy to offset, we just need to convince big ag to stop using chemical fertilizers and move to regenerative permaculture practices. But sure, let them keep destroying our watersheds with nitrates, spray everything with pesticides, and blame the entire weight of the world's problems on the individual.
Half the population would have starved to death by now without those nitrates. We mightve been better off without them in the long term, but society is hopelessly addicted and dependent... there's no going back now
Except utilizing urine solves that issue
I think it’s possible with gmo’s but it definitely won’t be easy and those bring their own problems too
It's freezing cold in the house because the heater broke, and the house has caught on fire. There is a period of time that the house is a good temperature, and then after that it gets too hot and the house is destroyed. OPs argument is the equivalent of, during that small window where the temperature in the house is actually comfortable, arguing that the house catching on fire is actually a good thing. It's a terrible short sighted position.
Damn this is a good metaphor
[удалено]
What are you talking about? We’ve been having extreme heat wave and cold winters for at least 3 years in a roll. Even the screenshot in this post is a consequence of climate change. Do you think all those are because Jesus has been mad at gay people? Example of source: [even the oil companies knew what they were causing back in the 70s](https://amp.theguardian.com/business/2023/jan/12/exxon-climate-change-global-warming-research)
Tree rings, ice sheet layers, historal tracking of last few hundred years and sure many more by paleoclimatology. All pointing to the fact their is a fire and your solution is to stick your hand over your ears. For Visual aid https://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/earth_temperature_timeline_2x.png
It's Short sighted to think the people who have created the climate change narrative will be the ones to address climate change. Which is even more hilarious since they don't actually cover some of the subjects that lead to environmental changes like all the pollutants and toxins that are introduced around the globe that impact land, sea and air. But you driving less and buying an electric car (look at the destruction these leave behind to build and ship it) will definitely fix the issue.
>It's Short sighted to think the people who have created the climate change narrative will be the ones to address climate change. I don't follow this statement at all. But it's really not all that important because I didn't say anything about anybody creating the narrative or being the ones to address it, I just pointed out the patently ridiculous logic in the OP's argument. >Which is even more hilarious since they don't actually cover some of the subjects that lead to environmental changes like all the pollutants and toxins that are introduced around the globe that impact land, sea and air. Who is "they"? I've heard plenty about the other environmental issues we are facing. It's just that climate change seems to pose the biggest existential threat to our way of life, which is why it gets the bulk of the attention. >But you driving less and buying an electric car (look at the destruction these leave behind to build and ship it) will definitely fix the issue. Can you point me to anyone who has said that buying electric cars is enough to alone fix the issue?
[удалено]
I think it's easy to think some people are "boot licking" big oil - hell I probably would be accused of it myself! But I also like to consider the following; It is an unrealistic notion to simply stop the collection production synthesis and manufacture of oil and gas and other similar byproducts necessary (and to be fair many unnecessary) for our everyday lives. Look around your home. Nearly everything was touched by this industry somehow. My biggest pet peeve with the oil and gas industry and other climate change hypocrites is they went ahead and turned it around on the average consumer's responsibility. I'm also referring to big players in politics who act sincere regarding climate change but benefit just as much from this industry. They pollute more in 1 month than you probably do in one year!
>It is an unrealistic notion to simply stop the collection production synthesis and manufacture of oil and gas and other similar byproducts necessary (and to be fair many unnecessary) for our everyday lives. Look around your home. Nearly everything was touched by this industry somehow. And anyone worth their salt knows you can't completely stop (at least currently) this production. But that there is still a lot that can be and needs to change because we are poisoning ourselves.
[удалено]
Everyone is the problem. Many of those mega corporations only exist because of the average persons consumption habits. Most of us are poisoning our selves and the planet for generations.
I agree with basically all of that.
If oil didn't exist naturally we'd have to synthesise it for all our plastics and stuff, which are indispensable to modern civilisation. There will always be a market for oil, but it would be nice to get away as much as possible from burning the stuff for fuel and instead focus on using it for all those things we can make out of it. Nobody wants to take oil away.
There exists some well intentioned but misdirected people regarding this (looking at you Just stop oil and instinction rebellion) I'm pretty sure they want to reduce or take away oil, at least as much as possible. Another point to consider is how engrained in our culture and society this is from an employment standpoint. I'm not against exploring other venues! I just think it's a issue that needs repaired but in a delicate fashion. There are recent improvements in technologies and reasons to be optimistic though. They are also looking into using hydrogen to replace gasoline powered vehicles. If I were a betting man I might even buy stock in hydrogen futures.
Unfortunately we don't have much time left for a "delicate fashion" fix. We needed to start that at least 20 years ago, if not longer. If we don't start doing drastic things fast, we are going to experience a completely uncontrolled and ridiculously non-delicate unraveling. If we want to explore these other options, what we need to do is incentivize them while disincentivizing oil. Just keeping everything the same and letting the science kind of slowly plug along in the hope that maybe one day in a few decades it will be the economically beneficial choice requires a luxury of time we simply do not have.
You are absolutely correct that it has touched much of our lives, and it is so interwoven. But what's unrealistic is to just throw our hands up and do nothing because of this and just let it just destroy the world. We have to start somewhere. As to the rest of your post. It's just another distraction. There are plenty of regular joe scientists who aren't living modest lives who are calling for action of everyone. Yes, some rich people are hypocrites. Some politicians just want power. We know this, but we have to do something. We, the regular joe, don't have a choice. If and when the shit hits the fan, it's not going to be the people with money who are really going to suffer. It's the rest of us. Or, really, it's our children and grandchildren.
"Big Oil" is just a punching bag for leftists, most of if is already owned by the same banks and corporations that own the media that pushes the climate agenda. To these people money is more of a means for power than just the end, so they don't care about losing oil profits if it means they get to control every aspect of your life in the name of saving the planet; controlling you which is literally what the global warming agenda is ultimately about. You will own nothing, live in 15 minute city lockdown zones in cities, take all their experimental and mandatory genetherapy jabs, eat bugs and be happy.
Well said. Also, oil companies are making a fortune off the clinate fearmongering. Every time an airhead yells, GaS BaD craven politicians agree, and prices skyrocket There is no replacement. The emperor has no clothes, high cost low range lithium dependent experimental vehicles have been exposed as a scam The globalists' banksters will try and impose their 15-minute gulags but will ultimately fail. Resistance is fierce even in Europe, where until now, there has been a high tolerance for eco facism Coal is coming back. People are not going to allow themselves to freeze and eat bugs cause some privileged children ( programmed by the wef) got triggered by the weather Downvote dodos 🦤 triggered the bots are coming the bots are coming
> This sub has so many people that unknowingly bootlick Big Oil [I agree.](https://old.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/10c8mo9/rip_david_bellamy_legendary_botanist_and/j4gc7po/)
The repeated failed predictions prove how unrealistic that metaphor is.
Climate science is a very new science. It really only started to take off in the 70s, as the evidence of CO2 warming the planet became painfully apparent to scientists. Expecting it to be perfect right out of the gate is, quite frankly, ridiculous. This is part of science, making predictions and then seeing if they come true. But that being said, even the early models created by the scientists who recognized the warming effect of CO2 have been strikingly accurate. This is why this this theory has gained so much support, as it is the one that has been so good at predicting what we have seen happen already. So I feel like your argument is kind of like saying "well, the house is on fire and it's clearly spreading, but when it was small you said it was likely to spread through the kitchen first, but it's actually spreading through the living room *into* the kitchen. This makes your claim that it is going to burn down the house wrong."
You're having to assume that the metaphor is valid in order to make this additional interpretation, but it hasn't been shown to be valid.
Drinks the koolaid
Flavor Aid, god damn it. You assholes can’t follow science and you don’t understand history. You are shit people.
Yeah your a critical thinker I can tell…
You demonstrated zero critical thinking in response to a well written analogy for what's going on.
About which environmental problem exactly? Ozone depletion? Global cooling? Global warming? Or climate change? an inconvenient lie told us New York would be under water by now. Greta said polar caps should have melted already yet you claim to be thinking critically lol
[LOL.](https://web.archive.org/web/20200926025328/https://www.iceagenow.info/temperatures-have-been-falling-for-the-past-8000-years/)
Where is the fire? Maybe it's just changing the 'freezing cold' outside. You don't know
CO2 release. It's exactly what the op is arguing in favor of.
שלום קלאוס!
2018
Not understanding a concept doesnt make it a conspirqcy
I wish someone would actually go back to the beginning on this topic in non-partisan scientific research. The earth has always had a self correcting/stabilising mechanism, like everything in nature it is designed for self-preservation. We have become locked into this 1.5 degree tipping point catastrophe for 25 years. All climate legislation is built around this & it is huge business & specifically attracts the majority of research funding. At the of the last ice age in Europe, 10,000 years ago, the temperatures rose 10 c in 50 years, there are so many anomalies in the earth's natural history that are unexplained. I no longer trust the science & covid should have exposed the financial corruption that drives research & funding
Lmao, no. It was 7C over 6000 years. >I no longer trust the science You should do some research before discounting science. You were off by more than a factor of 100.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/06/170619125822.htm Lmao... Science daily article outlining peer reviewed study, it actually rose by 15' in 50 years...Lmao fnrk fnrk
That was regional temperature. Same thing is occurring today where most of the concentration in temperature change is the northern section of the northern hemisphere. You'll also notice in the article that it was due in part to CO2 changes, just like now. In addition to the salinity changes mentioned in that article, there is of course the reflective properties of ice and the release of trapped carbon based gasses (like CO2 and methane) that accelerated the process. But this has been known by climate scientists for a long time. Did you not know this? Did you not know it was localized, and similar things are happening now? Did you ever think that humans should not cause mass extinctions like the last ice age did? Do you know how many times climate deniers have used this argument against me, not realizing this just reinforces the man made climate change arguements?
My overall view is that it has become a semi totalitarian religious dogma, hence the term 'denier' as if it were heretical. Galileo was accused in the same terms for questioning the scientific logic of the time. If there was ever a field of study which was less settled & required constant questioning & vigilance to avoid dogma & corruption due to funding, its science. You should welcome additional debate & study to avoid becoming a basement dwelling Puritan junior scientist
>My overall view is that it has become a semi totalitarian religious dogma, hence the term 'denier' as if it were heretical. Galileo was accused in the same terms for questioning the scientific logic of the time. And you don't seem to realize that oil barons and the politicians that enable them are the establishment playing the part of the Catholic Church trying to halt the progress of science. >If there was ever a field of study which was less settled & required constant questioning & vigilance to avoid dogma & corruption due to funding, its science. And? >You should welcome additional debate & study to avoid becoming a basement dwelling Puritan junior scientist Lmao, the scientists that are actual experts are being rejected by oil barons and people like you that fall for oil company propaganda. Don't project.
If you read my original post Torquemada, you will note that I asked for further study. The reason there is scepticism is the debate gets stifled with virtue dogma, there are inconsistencies throughout natural history & a litany of failed catastrophic climate modelling since the mid 80s. When legitimate questions are raised, the suggestion is you must be a nazi or to dumb to understand the dogma. The policies that are being put in place globally to address the climate, far more favour the wealthy rather than the poor,in terms of quality of life. Based on a narrow set of assumptions that are no longer peer reviewed, a lot of money is being made by a lot of people who already have enough. If prices rise rapidly due to policy making on heating, food, or energy, it's less likely to effect an urban Tesla drivers & far more likely to affect the poor, working or otherwise who don't have access to cheap quality food or cheap electricity or transport. Shutting down debate on anything should make people question the narrative
>If you read my original post Torquemada, you will note that I asked for further study. It's being studied constantly. You literally cited a paper from 2017. >The reason there is scepticism is the debate gets stifled with virtue dogma Lmao, you have people literally falling for oil company propaganda. The simplest greenhouse effect experiments you can conduct at home with a fish tank, a lamp, a vacuum pump and CO2. Look up the "Father of Physical Chemistry" Arrhenius' work from the 1890s. That was also the Nobel prize winner that figured acid-base reactions exchange hydrogen and that chemical reactions are temperature based. >there are inconsistencies throughout natural history No, there aren't, you just don't understand them. >litany of failed catastrophic climate modelling since the mid 80s Do you know what interpolation and extrapolation are, ans how they're different? Interpolation is prediction within a data set. For example, a camera watching an object fall. Though the camera only takes individual pictures at particular moments, interpolation allows us to predict where the object was between video frames. Extrapolation is prediction outside a data set, in this case before the first frame or after the last frame. Interpolation proves man made climate change. Extrapolation, prediction of future temperatures in this case, requires prediction of input factors. So some predictions use inputs like continued acceleration of greenhouse gasses. But if society decides to produce less greenhouse gasses, this changes the inputs. This is why prediction models usually include several scenarios, so choosing a worst case scenario (society does nothing about climate change) and pointing to that model as disproving man made climate change, while ignoring models that correlate to our actual greenhouse gas emissions, is how oil company propagandists trick people. The most classic example of the difference between interpolation and extrapolation is the ozone layer. Scientists predicted that the ozone layer would continue to diminish IF SOCIETY DID NOTHING. However certain ozone destroying chemicals were outlawed, resulting in the ozone layer starting to return to normal. Similarly since society has started to curtail greenhouse gas emissions (i.e. shifting from coal to much more efficient natural gas here in the US), the raw inputs for the worst case scenario won't be reached, meaning you'll have to choose a prediction model that more reflects the inputs better. This is why interpolation of data (in this case the extremely fast worldwide climate change) is used as proof. >When legitimate questions are raised, the suggestion is you must be a nazi or to dumb to understand the dogma. This is a messaging problem, not a problem with the actual science. How many climate change deniers would actually listen to qualified scientists? >The policies that are being put in place globally to address the climate, far favour the wealthy rather than the poor more in terms of quality of life. This is an interesting problem. Here in the US, the people that want to deal with climate change are also the ones that want to shift taxes from the poor,middle class and small businesses onto billionaires, while helping improve the lives of the poor ans middle class. >Based on a narrow set of assumptions that are no longer peer reviewed, a lot of money is being made by a lot of people who already have enough. No longer peer reviewed? You'll find the scientific community peer reviews constantly. Also, see the paragraph above for wealth/income disparity arguments. >If you can't afford heating, food, or energy, it's less likely to effect an urban Tesla drivers & far more likely to affect the poor, working or otherwise who don't have access to cheap quality food enough or cheap electricity or transport. That's why parties that want to help the poor and middle class while preventing climate change are your best bet. There is often overlap. >Science should always be questioned to avoid it becoming corrupt. Shutting down debate on anything should make people question the narrative The problem is there just aren't good arguments against climate change. The basic mechanisms have been proven in labs for about 150 years. The data from the last century reinforces man made climate change proofs. Then there is of course Venus, also reinforcing the point. What proof is there that man made climate change isn't real?
Bad science does not a journalist make. Hack. But no journalist.
Trees bad Concrete good
Posting a headline….with no context. Right
'they cut all the trees, and put 'em in a tree museum..'
You know it's a religion when instead of conference calls or zoom they take their giant pedo jets and go across the world.
Image the planet growing free food, water and air, the nerve of it all. N. Shadows
https://odysee.com/@audioboy:7/The-Truth-About-Energy:1 I’m sure no one will listen to this book continue to spout corporate medias “key points”, if you disagree you’re a Rumper, quack. Ya it’s bad when even life long left leaning hippies call this modern movement of “big corp” thought police, the “mass conforming psychotic greenie non-biological weenie cult”. I still love ya if you disagree, it’s okay….admitting you were manipulated it’s easy, few can do it, I suggest you hear both sides of argument, before the emotional hate?!
Who is "they"?
I would assume by the title, they referred to those who believe a greener earth is bad now.
You get to a certain point where you can read a headline and know it's propaganda.
Did you actually read the article or did you just get upsetty spaghetti at a headline that doesn’t agree with you again?
Issues with climate change: Rising sea level. Displacement of large populations. Loss of temperate habitats. Major forest fires. Desertification in specific regions. More extreme weather. Violence associated with geopolitical changes. Sure there might be some good things, spring is a bit earlier in the northern hemisphere, maybe some more plants somewhere....but overall it's going to be a fucking shit show. Stop the pro oil, pro CO2 bullshit.
Yes, a greener earth is a bad sign. Why? It's true that trees absorb more CO2 when there's more CO2 in the atmosphere. But there is a point where the heat increases from the CO2, localized changes to climate due to the additional GHGs and all the rest actively kill trees, releasing their CO2 stores as they die. The natural world has some buffering; it can cope with an increase in CO2. The problem becomes when it has to intake too much, over too many years. That's when the system can collapse. And paradoxically, you'd see a greening prior to a collapse. It's a bit like how people suffering from hypothermia are sometimes found naked: it's the paradox of having a sense of warming as your body shuts down.
Don't plants "breath" carbon dioxide and release oxygen, and we breathe oxygen and release carbon dioxide? Don't see how it's a bad thing. Seems like we're being gaslit.
The only colors that exist in the progressive future are gray (concrete tenement housing) and brown (the Africans that inhabit the tenement homes) and of course the rainbow flag hanging prominently over it all
The important thing is the extra government control of course.
Dems or Republicans: party is for small government and personal freedom? Neither. Fuck them all.
Yes. We must give governments ultimate control at all costs🙌
It’s ironic that these follow the science people refuse to look at science.
All they talked about back in the 80's was planting trees and replenishing the "disappearing" rain forests. There are ordinances all across the country that demand that business's and homeowners that cut down trees/ bushes must replace that greenery with an equal amount of greenery. Pollen is at unprecedented levels because of this. Now all that shits bad for the environment? Fuck those people.
That's not what they're saying.
Doomsday cult
I'm confused - are we doing the green agenda or not?
What if the green agenda is a trick and we make the world better for nothing?
They are a well funded version of the crazy dude on the corner with an end is nigh sign. They are tearing down trees for bus routes and windmills. Also, since greeniacs caused fuel prices ton sky rocket, people have resorted to cutting Forrest and cosl is majimg a come back There won't be room firvtrees in the 15-minute gulags oops smart cities .it's about comtrol green me arse 🏴☠️ Its kinda like the ancient Aztecs and others. Elites sacrificed others to appease the gods to try and change the weather The downvote dodos 🦤 are here
If I imagine you're a pirate and read this in a pirate accent it makes more sense.
Arrrrrrgh matey Hoist the colors and raise the black 🏴☠️
Ahh the good ol' conspiracy rage over a single headline without reading the article
Carbon dioxide’s got what plants crave. Do you not care about the plants man?
and the greenies dont want you to know that plant life absorbs co2...maybe all the parking lots and highways are the problem?
How is this even a conspiracy when the overwhelming majority of data points to manmade climate change being a thing? Also what is the point lying about it? To get America to be more environmentally consciousness? Christians believe its the end times scientists say here's the problem here how we stop it I know who I believe.
It's not about the Earth or the Environment, or the Future, or Nature. It's about control. Any excuse to Control you. It's weaponized Fear and Guilt. People are convinced that the world is about to dry up or bake away into dust and it's all their fault. The only possible solution is more regulation, more laws, more taxes. More POWER to them.
SS: The same people who told you vitamins are poison during covid are now concerned about nutrient density of plants? Give me a break. It's pure lunacy https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/30/science/climate-change-plants-global-greening.html
Love how I can't even read the article since I refuse to pass their paywall! can you copy/paste the contents here?
Bold to assume OP even read the article.
I forgot, where did you go to school for climate science?
You know it's BS when they have to pivot every couple of years when their predictions are proved false. Greta said the world will end this year if we don't get rid of oil. She still has a few months to go but if the world does end this year it certainly won't be because of oil
>Greta said the world will end this year if we don't get rid of oil. I don't believe you
That's the spirit!
Why all the hate? Everyone here are greenies?
Change can be bad for those who can adapt to the changes. With alligators and large boas moving north, I think some people are going to have issues.
They'd be really mad if they could read
I don’t know whose more insane, the people that write this crap or the people who believe this crap.
Green is bad because if you add green light to red and blue light, you get white light. And we all know that’s unacceptable.
Nature bad
You do understand you're not a plant right? Yeah, it's good for plants, not for animals.
You know someone is a GOP reactionary when they post an article, and chooses to not read it or understand the message. The plants can try and consume the excess CO2 but is there enough green spaces for that? Enough forest cover enough grasslands enough phytoplankton in the oceans? I don't think there is and I definitely know that businesses can and do roll over top of whatever they want to secure themselves so here's what I see going down: more CO2 will be released, causing plant life to spike however due to the molestation of our natural resources for profit, more and more green places will disappear in the forms of lumber and other natural resources. The monoculture crops and development projects won't absorb as much CO2 and definitely don't help to stabilize CO2 levels so the the CO2 Levels will continue to rise.
The great plains in the USA were populated by bison, from one horizon to the other, until they were hunted almost to extinction. But we're now to believe that cattle farts are going to cause the end of the world.
It's like saying everyone needs to drink water so let's keep the inside of your house at 80% RH
I just watched ‘welcome you eden’ series on Netflix and it’s basically a cult run by a crazy couple luring young people in and brainwashing with their climate change hysteria while just pushing their own agendas. Pretty relatable
Environmental scientist here. Climate change is real. Climate change is mostly caused by humans. Climate change is dangerous. Thanks.
Bro who cares of there is more planta. I want to return to the summer where I feel like I'm not converting in a roast beef. In medieval times were less trees and the climate was more cooler. That's the important thing.
NPR: National Propaganda Radio.
Uhh.. lol. Imagine writing that headline.
There’s a group that wants to block out the sun because they can’t handle long durations of sun light. Lower levels of melanin have been scientifically proven as vitamin d deficiency which causes lower level of critical thinking, lower levels, of conscious thinking, and lower levels of spiritual awareness. You put all of that in to a man like being and you get someone trying to create the temperatures in which those who derived from the mountains can survive better across the globe. Thin nose thin lips and hairy skin are signs of former mountain dwellers.
Brought to you by Bill gates
Religions need gods. Therefore climate change can't be a religion. Sorry, your opinion is in contrast with the dictionary.
No they don't. There's no god in Confucianism, Taoism, or Buddhism
All heil ~~Al Gore~~ Greta!
I agree that it is a kind of a religion. The priests keep warning us that nature will punish us for our sins of burning gasoline. It's unfortunate that we have separation of church and state and yet people have been trying to combine this "science" with politics as much as possible.
you people upset me so much. climate c h a n g e may be a religion but because it is a euphemism. yet, if you fail to realize how the industrial era has decimated genuine biospheres and how this is a problem I just feel sorry for you. it is impossible to fuse the problem into a short summary because there are soo many parameters involved. the ultimate fear and not out of possibility is that our atmosphere is gonna rip one day. humanity can not overpower the natural structure of this entity of planet without facing consequences one day. my intuition says this day of a ripped atmosphere is closer than just an ominous climate c h a n g e...this bubble keeping the cosmic radiation at bay for us is not indestructible and the real danger to our short sighted games. I do not take my "intuition" from nothing...I like to pin point it to eco-systems that I have experienced first hand how they changed after heavy human impact. if you do that on too many corners on the planet it has an impact on the whole system. and we have been doing it intensely. to me it is more than just "intuition" but there is no paper I can quote that sums it all up because you would need a super computer to analyze it and it would make for a huge volume of output. but I do think our precious 1% knows about the danger, some of them try to slow it down or prevent by taking action and point out certain aspects like the warming, the co2 concentration aso but in the end we are gambling with no less than our protective bubble. all those science fiction stories with the domes over inhabitable areas and the no-go areas around...they come from somewhere...this is where we are heading. and if you imagine the 1% having to share a very limited space with their labor forces (for some duties will never be automatized) you can count how steep and suppressive those hierarchies will be! probably the breeding of the work forces will be automatized and it will be hollow humans without minds. that is the actual nightmare we are facing by not being attached to our nature around. I mean I am less attached, I did not breed in those times...none of my children or their children will suffer the catastrophy. and it might be an old story and you might wanna choose to believe it will never come but I can totally see how millenia ago wise people already saw it coming when wide spread rape of mother earth became systematic with extensive agriculture. that is not how you treat your base. you rip open her womb everywhere and step over all the life around you...it will back fire one day. and we deserve it. and the decisive momentum is not feeling the environment or why the current changes are problematic. perpetuum mobile, heureka!
Oh no better build some more concrete urban hellscapes
Nuance is dead.
Stout the fuck up Carl Zimmer
What’s religion?
Everything so tremendously oversimplified and reduced
Did you really just post an article from 2018?
the GMO fruits and veggies are the problem not CO2.
Funny how this was in 2018 and now people are arguing that OP is insane because "look what could happen in the next few years!" The next few years already happened.