Global warming and climate change alarmists harp on about “dangerously high” manmade CO2 output levels. So how much are they? The answer will shock you


#41

You’re just confirming my citation of the Summa Theologiae, that’s all you do here, losing yourself in unrelated topics and questions to me that only serve to have a dispersive and irrelevant effect.

We are not doing a theological disquisition about science or global warming, whose main aim is only to keep seated in each of us own convinctions.

Good for you…

Of course…LOL , you just haven’t got even as far as past Step 1.

That’s what you’re unable to discern…I only observe, the information that I study just keeps filling more and more missing and until now obscure points, in a neverending learning path.

As I have stated in the note, I don’t agree with that scientist final conclusions, but he’s adding something to the general understanding in a considerable way, at least for me…

And lastly…this is the second time you call me Lilo, when there are visibly TWO “L” in the middle of my nickname…if you’re unable to see even simple small details like this one, then I seriously doubt you can accurately read and ponder what is written to you and do the amount of work required to even discern most simple things…

Peace.


#42

Petty much? Jesus. I have bad eyesight. Sorry LILLO


#43

That’s 3 "L"s. Come on now, pay attention.


#44

Why the hell am I reading a climate change debate on a forum for a VR headset manufacturer?

Guess I’ll have to jump in and contribute. Your honor, I submit this playlist into counter-evidence against the prosecution.


#45

Let me ask you only one question, glaciers and ice cap are melting and it just append in the same time of the human industrialization what a coincidence don’t you think?

If this was a criminal investigation the prime suspect with be man at 95% and only 5% for other culprits. If you want to focus your attention on the 5% it’s your choice but it’s not logical.


#46

.

.

Sources: Various.

.


#47

I believe it may be a form of mental illness mixed in with extremely poor analytical skills. Such people will often get deeply fanatical about their beliefs and will try aggressively to proselytise. They use any opportunity. Often relentless Facebook posts or any other medium they can find as ridiculous as it may seem (eg a VR forum). It will often be a barrage of multiple posts (I think this has been merged?) to hammer the point home. Whether they see themselves as saviours of the universe with urgent info people must believe or do it to convince themselves that they are not mad I don’t know. Probably a mixture of both. These people will often shoehorn the topic into any conversation they can (as again happened to me last night with a friend shoehorning some BS about chemtrails into a discussion about furniture. I quite frankly pointed this out to him.) … I see it a lot as I run regular inter-belief discussion evenings. And they will totally refuse to look at any debunking info.

This is not to say that merely holding a conspiracy belief means you have a psychological condition. I for example hold several (likely extraterrestrial visitation, genuine queries over 911 etc) but I don’t go on about these things (in fact most who know me don’t even know what I think on these things and may be surprised). They are private beliefs which I appreciate may be wrong anyway. The difference is folk like me are very open to opposing opinions and actively seek them out and consider them. Eg I thought for a time moon landings were fake. I studied debunking websites and went back and forth evaluating the evidence and decided it’s nonsense (to my slight disappointment)). The same with me and manmade climate change denial, which I initially embarrassingly was sympathetic towards before doing more research, which is why I jumped into this topic briefly (before leaving it with some friendly advice for Lillo).

What puts all conspiracy theorists in a very bad light are these sort of aggressive types who will plaster their BS wherever they can. It’s an obsession, it’s an addiction, it’s an affliction, it’s a drug. And sadly (for those of us who do query a couple of things here and there) it actually detracts from finding the truth about anything. And if I really want to go into conspiracy mode (putting my tinfoil hat on here) I’ll say this sort of madness is encouraged by the powers that be to muddy the waters so the general public just rolls their eyes and throws the baby out with the bathwater whenever anyone queries anything… Either way it’s productive for noone.

And there is no such thing as proper discussion with these people. Their mind is set. These forceful posts are announcements, not topics for reasoned discussion.

That’s not to say there isn’t a deep rooted psychological issue with sceptics too. For many there absolutely is. They are just as aggressive and fanatical about their fragile world view that “everything is as it seems” and will fight to the death to prove it and knock down anything even vaguely “out there”. But at least these guys don’t feel the need to force it onto everybody as they only need to react to claims and so at worst simply act as the treacle and inertia through which new ideas must navigate rather than the constant shower of faecal matter that pathological conspiracists inflict on the whole of humanity.


#48

Outstanding post :clap:


#49

And are you able to give me cumulative count of all studies showing the cycling ice cap or glacier cover is really only influence by natural phenomena. Cherry picking some studies from random site to prove your point is not science, only a general consensus and peer review give these articles a meaning. Eisenstein publish many articles against certain aspect of the quantum physic theory and was wrong as much a we can understand it today. There is never a 100% certitude but only strong indication toward the probability of something.


#50

What is mind-boggling me is that some people completely deny the possibility that humans can influence and change our environment ( not just climate change). Even if we have many direct proof in our face. It’s certain that some cycle is involved in climate variation but this does not preclude humans made alterations


#51

Again you are not understanding what I’m trying to suggest you look at, I already said I never deny anything, this is only data to show you there may be missing points of evaluation of the whole problem…

I don’t deny the human factor, of course it has done more than some bad effect since early industrialization, but is is very small, compared to other external and recurring factors (i.e.- physic factors on a galactic scale) that are easily noticed if the trend is looked on a wide time scale, that all the data points at, if looked and discerned neutrally.

Even with these proven data, satellite measurements made over the last 40 years, most of you insist on remaining in a paradigm of “us and them”, “true and false”, “right and left” etc.

It is not the correct way of observing the problem, neither scientifically speaking, nor from a point of view of simple discernment.

That’s why you are just being used from some powers to think that the problem is JUST man made, then pushed to accept a pre-planned “solution” that may not be in everyone best interest…they always try to focus us on marginal, even not real things to force us into a Problem-Reaction-Solution cycle…and the implications of this are ALWAYS bad for us.

Yes, there must be some plan to stop pollution, restore the planet, move to cleaner energy, but don’t let them use this distraction to be fooled in other plans, totally disconnected and separated from what needs to be done.


#52

You’re welcome too ! :laughing:

Not realizing tough…that you’re showing to be a perfect example of doing just what you’re ttalking about…

While I just am content to say “look at this extra data, and slightly different point of view”…

Simple as this…


#53

An introduction to your reply would have greatly help…

Hum, don’t worry about this almost nobody is applying the pre-planned “solution” you speaking of. For now everything is almost only talks and half measure

And what is needed if you know so?


#54

Yes like someone pointing a little dot in a freshly painted wall, if you think this data represent so much conclusive evidence that human are not mostly responsible for climate change show us a least that there is a growing support for your thesis.

Worldwide decisions can’t be made on minority reports or by one man thinking the earth is flat. There is a difference between keeping a open mind in some experimentation and having the burden to take a political decision on a scientific evidences


#55

Thanks only to the conscious pleople who documented and the honest scientist, who expressed their intelligent view of the problem !..


#56

It’s not a minority report, it’s only that some people, that are insisting on not looking the other TON of data and evidence, are keeping the flase paradigm alive.


#57

Sorry but from my perspective I’m not able to assert who is honest or not only that some scientific are related to industry that have a direct interests to change nothing,


#58

This video by Joe Martino is a splendid example of correct critical reasoning and discernment using ALL the existing data from a subject remaining neutral (Trump in this case) , try to put aside the fact that you may like the president or not, just look at the process and how the guy in the video direct you … the same method can be used for any scientific or non-scientific investigation.

Another reading that can be useful wich suggests how this can be done:

Peace.


#59

It’s funny that you insist that all the science that supports man-made global warming is part of some conspiracy, but you’ll happily swallow the contrary statements and psuedoscience that just happen to be very good for business.

Movements to greener technologies and energy supply is not so good for Big Oil/Coal. CO2 restrictions and taxes result in additional expenses for industry.

You’re insisting that we open our minds to “data” from incredibly unreliable sources (Daily Mail?) and that we are brainwashed for not accepting their conclusions, and yet you are blind to the very real possibility that it is YOU who is brainwashed, and has happily absorbed the “hidden truths” that just happen to be incredibly convenient for the aforementioned incredibly wealthy interested parties.

It’s not so long ago that the tobacco industry were paying doctors to publishing multitudes of similar studies that claimed to show that smoking isn’t bad for your health. What makes you so sure the “studies” that you’re using don’t come from the oil industry or other similar parties with a financial interest in the matter?

Also that “Deep Truth Behind Why Trump Is President” video was hilarious. From the claim that people laugh at Trump “because he’s too honest” to the absolute certainty about the existence of this shadowy cabal and that Trump’s actions are definitely hurting this cabal. There’s a much simpler and more realistic explanation for why Trump is president: There is a non-negligible fraction of the population who will watch nonsense like this and gobble it up.


#60

Maybe…The times to come, very soon will show if the direction we have undertaken collectively is one that will definitely change our existence and the way we live …

On the contrary, it would have been really stupid to persist on the same line followed for decades, which has led us to break down in every sector of human progress.