Submitted by Weeb_Geek_7779 t3_yapnmg in singularity
tms102 t1_itchbp7 wrote
Reply to comment by beachmike in Could AGI stop climate change? by Weeb_Geek_7779
This question has been answered many times over. Human activity is accelerating climate change.
beachmike t1_itcnlo7 wrote
The fact that a particular belief has been repeated thousands or millions of times doesn't make it true.
Kinexity t1_itcoogg wrote
The fact that it has been proven by research multiple times does though.
beachmike t1_itcwfff wrote
Nonsense. The earth was far warmer in medieval times before humans even had an industrial civilization. What caused the warming then? The earth was even warmer during the era of ancient Rome. One major volcanic eruption puts more green house gases into the atmosphere than humans have during the entire span of human civilization. Research has shown there to be NO correlation between CO2 levels and the earth's temperature. See that big glowing yellow ball in the sky during the day? It's called the SUN, and it's what effects the climate far more than the activities of puny humans. The effect humans have on the climate are statistically insignificant. You belong to the cult of "climate change." It's your religion.
hducug t1_itd0wak wrote
Well that is just not true, I mean if your just going to lie than we can play the lying game.
beachmike t1_itd1twr wrote
I don't expect to convince a member of the Cult of Climate such as yourself to change their thinking. You've been brainwashed. There is no climate crisis, skippy.
Kinexity t1_itdfij6 wrote
Bro, I literally study physics and currently have physics of weather and climate classes and a simple graph of CO2 absorption spectrum, CO2 levels and Earth's energy balance prove your wrong. Since the start of industrial revolution CO2 level grew by over 30%. It's not like there is that many of it in the atmosphere as if we were to compress it on sea level to standard pressure you get barely 3 metre high layer. It's fairly small amount. Increase in CO2 levels correlates with estimation of industrial emissions. There was no other significant sources at that time other than human industries. Then what follows is imbalance in energy received by Earth which is just on average +1 W/m^2 which causes increase in total energy stored on the surface of the earth which we observe as increase of temperature. It's not that fucking hard to understand. The longer we do measurment's the less we observe effects of Sun's activity because it turns out the Sun is quite stable and it's energy output doesn't really change. Earth's climate is a very complex dance of many effects and small alterations do change a lot. Over 30% increase in CO2 concentration isn't insignificant for a gas which has a lifetime of thousands of years in the atmosphere we reached such high increase because there isn't a lot of it in the atmosphere.
You could have literally chosen a more sane stance that effects of climate change aren't that signinficant and it's not really a problem but instead you've gone full crazy lying that climate change isn't real which is only true if you ignore 96% consensus in the scientific community and the overwhelming amount of scientific papers that support this consensus. Science isn't politics, if you lie but your lie will be discovered. People who deny climate change either have stakes in biggest polluters or are stubborn idiots railed up by said people who can't accept that changes need to be made.
beachmike t1_itdhbhk wrote
Yes, I agree: you're a brainwashed climate cultist. To the people out there that think for themselves: THERE IS NO CLIMATE CRISIS.
Kinexity t1_itef4u1 wrote
I reread your comment and noticed this bullshit:
>One major volcanic eruption puts more green house gases into the atmosphere than humans have during the entire span of human civilization.
Now show me on this fucking graph when did the eruption of Mount St. Helens happen? Were the fuck is it? If it's so fucking huge compared to human source then why can't we fucking see it on a CO2 concetration graph? There should be a fucking peak in 1980 if you were right but there is none.
Also:
>The earth was far warmer in medieval times before humans even had an industrial civilization. What caused the warming then? The earth was even warmer during the era of ancient Rome.
Have you seen this fucking graph? Where did that "warmer" period go? Where is it?
Honestly I should have originally read first half of your comment before, not just the second half, as it contained the easiest bullshit. You just pull those "facts" out of your ass which are proven wrong by two graphs based on peer reviewed studies and pretend like "owned the libs" or whatever is your favourite term.
beachmike t1_iter5ix wrote
You never heard of supervolcanos? You never heard of naturally occurring forest fires? There is NO correlation between CO2 levels in the atmosphere and the earth's temperature. What happened to the climate cultists screaming about "global cooling" and the upcoming man-made ice-age during the 1980s and 1990s? OH YEAH, DIDN'T HAPPEN. What happened to Al Gore's "temperature hockey stick"? OH YEAH, DIDN'T HAPPEN. What happened to the prediction in 2009 by Al Gore and many other climate clowns that the polar ice caps would be completely melted by 2014? OH YEAH, DIDN'T HAPPEN. Do you know why so many academic studies agree with the cult of climate change? Because if the people applying for climate research grants disagree with the status quo, they don't get funding. You need to GROW UP, GET EDUCATED, and ideally go through cult deprogramming.
***THERE IS NO CLIMATE CRISIS***
Kinexity t1_iteulp6 wrote
>You never heard of supervolcanos? You never heard of naturally occurring forest fires?
You have one task - find me a graph of the last 150-200 years of CO2 concentration with significant peak caused by natural catastrophe. The only way you can prove to me that extreme natural disasters change global climate is to show me the graph that proves it. I say they don't and have shown you a graph which, if you were correct, would have shown CO2 concetration peak in 1980. The worst volcanic eruptions we know of cause several years of less sunlight at worse and left no lasting effect.
>There is NO correlation between CO2 levels in the atmosphere and the earth's temperature.
Here you go, correlation.
>What happened to the climate cultists screaming about "global cooling" and the upcoming man-made ice-age during the 1980s and 1990s? OH YEAH, DIDN'T HAPPEN. What happened to Al Gore's "temperature hockey stick"? OH YEAH, DIDN'T HAPPEN. What happened to the prediction in 2009 by Al Gore and many other climate clowns that the polar ice caps would be completely melted by 2014? OH YEAH, DIDN'T HAPPEN.
Where are papers that said that? I don't care what some randos said at some point. You seem to not understand the difference between scientific community and the activist community. Most scientists aren't activists. Activists may or may not overexagerate what scientists said.
"I've disproven by observation what some activist said which means the climate change doesn't exist" - no, bro, that's not how this works.
Also past performance does not predict future performance. You cannot say that even if someone was 100% wrong in the past that it means he'll be 100% wrong in the future.
>Do you know why so many academic studies agree with the cult of climate change? Because if the people applying for climate research grants disagree with the status quo, they don't get funding.
Which isn't true because that's not how scientific studies work. You don't do studies like "Proving that climate change doesn't exist". You do stuff like "Study of existance of the climate change". There is no results before the study. You can easily frame it however you like and then publish whatever comes out. There is no questionare about your views on your research topic. You just need to show there is a reason to reasearch something. It's against scientific methods to approach a problem with bias about the conclusion. Anything goes as long as you follow scientific protocol and don't make up shit. It's that easy. If some dumbass goes around saying that he doesn't get funding because they don't like his research he's lying and probably has a case of scientific misconduct against him.
tms102 t1_itcuvmh wrote
The thing is that it is not one answer repeated but many different answers lead to the same conclusion. Meaning, the same conclusion can be drawn in different disciplines from different angles.
Just because youre ignorant of the answers and or don't understand them doesn't mean something isn't a fact.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments