I stumbled onto GMA the other morning. The reporting was making sure everyone understood that the earthquake in SoCal was not caused by the Tropical Storm. We have people that dense to link the two.

Shut the **** up Donnie.

Has anyone ever defined what the GOAL of all of these green initiatives looks like? It seems all we hear is HOW, but not the WHAT/to WHAT END ("...in order to achieve XXXXX on [date] as measured by XXXXX").

Also, only an authoritarian government can reach this goal by destroying things that make humans prosperous. ahem... the science is settled (and enjoy eating bugs)."

Cultural PS: Modern World History Summary: Basically slavery then industrial revolution.

schmellba99 said:

---

Let us also not forget that this isn't a one way street where these compounds are produced and are here forever, with ever increasing levels of concentration in our atmosphere.

Because it doesn't work that way. C02 is consumed by plant matter, and we have more trees in the US now than is calculated to have been here prior to Columbus. Water vapor is a variable condition as well, and we have very little to do with how much that goes up and down, etc.

Look at the article manhatten posted - it does not discuss anything other than the fear mongering that evil man is killing the planet and we must all become poor (except for a few super smart people that shall lead us all) in order to combat it. It does not talk about the full cycle of energy or chemical reactions. Imagine that - the party that doesn't know what logic is cannot complete a circle of logic.

---

There are recent studies showing that the atmosphere is adapting to "cleanse itself" of pollutants cause by man. I will try and find the article, but it surprised the scientist studying it and has not been promoted as it is inconsistent with climate change fear.

MD1993 said:

---

I stumbled onto GMA the other morning. The reporting was making sure everyone understood that the earthquake in SoCal was not caused by the Tropical Storm. We have people that dense to link the two.

---

How do they know? If fracking can cause earthquakes, why cannot millions and millions of pounds of water being dumped onto and into the ground over several hours not result in tectonic influence?

Half kidding... but half serious.

Climate change happened even more drastically before man existed. Those natural variables didn't become static, they never will. Nature causes climate to change, mostly solar activity, earth's orbit, and earth's mantle. Common sense isn't common.

"Climate change" is a religion for those who cant see beyond their own life expectancy, or the geology before their existence. It's actually narcissistic to think you can impact climate either way. True science deniers, denying nature's impact.

aggie93 said:

---

I'd love to see a calculator of the amount of time it takes to make up for the carbon released from an event like this out of say, the number of electric cars in California. That's actually arguments we should be making. We can literally spend years making drastic lifestyle changes and impoverishing ourselves and one burp from a volcano and it's wiped out.

---

Or we can use their own words against them. Greta said we'd be goners by this year. No matter what we do, we're beyond the point of no return. We're all going to die.

TexAgs91 said:

---

aggie93 said:

---

I'd love to see a calculator of the amount of time it takes to make up for the carbon released from an event like this out of say, the number of electric cars in California. That's actually arguments we should be making. We can literally spend years making drastic lifestyle changes and impoverishing ourselves and one burp from a volcano and it's wiped out.

---

Or we can use their own words against them. Greta said we'd be goners by this year. No matter what we do, we're beyond the point of no return. We're all going to die.

---

We've done that though. I think it's about hitting back with science and facts in new ways. For instance I loved watching Sen Kennedy ask the Biden official how much the $50 Trillion he wants to spend will lower the temperature and watching him squirm. Here you could go out and say, "Well, another volcanic eruption. I guess there goes 2 years worth of millions of people driving overpriced EV's to save on carbon". You have to put it in perspectives people understanding.

The other thing that frustrates the hell out of me is Republicans don't put the costs into amounts people can grasp. For instance saying that because we aren't opening up O&G here it has raised fuel prices by X. That also raises the cost of just about everything. Having those policies cost the average American Y dollars per year that they desperately need in this economy. The Middle Class is the ones getting hurt, it's not like the Upper Class gives a damn about paying an extra $50 a week to fill up their Escalade or they are driving their $80k EV. Regular folks are having to go without for wealthy people to virtue signal.

Hit back and put things in terms people understand.

Well, the MSM keeps on telling them that the climate change is man made so it must be true.

Never ask a liberal for facts about anything they support for you will get two responses, an verbal attack of insults or that deer in the headlights look.

Ok. Volcanic eruptions make up less than 1% of human co2 output.
https://www.usgs.gov/programs/VHP/volcanoes-can-affect-climate

now lets see what phd level research papers F16 can come up with that proves that all climate scientist are lying morons

^
'
'
'
'
That is a .gov site. Totally trustworthy.

Manhattan said:

---

https://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/which-emits-more-carbon-dioxide-volcanoes-or-human-activities

---

The devil is always in the details:

Quote:

---

While acknowledging a large range of variability in the estimates, the authors concluded that the best overall estimate was about 0.6 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide per year.

---

No big deal, just a 54% margin of error!

Quote:

---

The total range over all five global estimates is 0.13 Gt y1(minimum) to 0.44 Gt y-1 (maximum), or 0.285 +/- 0.155 Gt y-1

---

In reference to the "most comprehensive" study underlying the one cited by your article:

Quote:

---

Finally, they fully acknowledge inherent large uncertainties by setting a broad plausible range estimate.

---

This article and all underlying studies are garbage, and should never have been published as informative results. Their estimated measurements and subsequent conclusions aren't remotely statistically significant, and can't be taken as legitimate. So if that's the best climate science is done, then it is clear that we have no ****ing clue how much CO2 a Volcano releases.

DarkBrandon01 said:

---

Ok. Volcanic eruptions make up less than 1% of human co2 output.
https://www.usgs.gov/programs/VHP/volcanoes-can-affect-climate

now lets see what phd level research papers F16 can come up with that proves that all climate scientist are lying morons

---

Now do SO2 and Methane.

Edited to add ... Not lying morons... Just the other thing.

DarkBrandon01 said:

---

Ok. Volcanic eruptions make up less than 1% of human co2 output.
https://www.usgs.gov/programs/VHP/volcanoes-can-affect-climate

now lets see what phd level research papers F16 can come up with that proves that all climate scientist are lying morons

---

Your article references the same "publication" as the one Manhattan quoted, so I refer you to my above comments.

Quoting a paper as scientific fact that has an error margin of 54% in its results is unbelievably laughable. In any actual scientific field those "results" would be ridiculed and the papers themselves likely straight up rejected by journals for publication. There's this thing called statistical significance that data needs in order to be considered relevant.