Climate Change(d)?

[GenesisNemesis]

I’m not saying he is “stupid” but whatever he is (troll, uneducated, just having a laugh, or whatever) he is demonstrably not open to a good faith discussion of the topic, just apparently mindless droning of simplistic platitudes and irrelevancies.

I said a long time ago that I would sooner talk to Christians about the science of miracles or the resurrection than discuss the climate catastrophe with the religious zealots on here.

Seems a bit like cancel culture to me. It does make sense though since you act a lot like those Christians when confronted with evidence against your view. Like often attracts like.

 

[TSwizzle]

Then why don't you do that. Nobody is forcing you to stay here giving eye rolls and making idiotic posts. Seriously, why are you here if you don't even want to try to understand the human impact of climate change? It's your close mindedness to scientific evidence that is problem. That is why you remind us of religious extremists. Like you, they can't handle the truth.

lol, “the science is settled” is as close minded as you can get.

 

[Elixir]

lol, “the science is settled” is as close minded as you can get.

… showing your complete ignorance of science.
“Settled science” is the juiciest kind, if you’re a scientist. (You’re NOT).
There is no loftier goal for any scientist than to falsify “settled science”. Many better minds than yours have tried to upset “settled” climate science, but so far the laws of thermodynamics and all others, remain intact.
None of it is ever going to fall to your pitiful ignorant denials.

 

[steve_bank]

Then why don't you do that. Nobody is forcing you to stay here giving eye rolls and making idiotic posts. Seriously, why are you here if you don't even want to try to understand the human impact of climate change? It's your close mindedness to scientific evidence that is problem. That is why you remind us of religious extremists. Like you, they can't handle the truth.

lol, “the science is settled” is as close minded as you can get.

Once again, by all means cite an explicit reason for rising sea levels other than current climate science.

It is settled as all options have been addressed. Natural sources of greenhouse gases like vulcanism have been ruled out by measurements of the contributions.

 

[GenesisNemesis]

You can just look up how much carbon is emitted by volcanoes vs humans burning fossil fuels, Tswizzle. But we all know why you don't.

 

[Elixir]

Natural sources of greenhouse gases like vulcanism have been ruled out by measurements of the contributions.

The irony of the poster contesting “settled science” by calling it groupthink and using the fucking internet to give voice to his abysmal ignorance, that irony is so overwhelming that it actually mimics native stupidity in a lot of ways.

 

[southernhybrid]

Natural sources of greenhouse gases like vulcanism have been ruled out by measurements of the contributions.

The irony of the poster contesting “settled science” by calling it groupthink and using the fucking internet to give voice to his abysmal ignorance, that irony is so overwhelming that it actually mimics native stupidity in a lot of ways.

It's hard to believe he's not an evangelical Christian. Then again, he did admit that he voted for Trump, so that might explain why he is a denialist.

 

[GenesisNemesis]

Natural sources of greenhouse gases like vulcanism have been ruled out by measurements of the contributions.

The irony of the poster contesting “settled science” by calling it groupthink and using the fucking internet to give voice to his abysmal ignorance, that irony is so overwhelming that it actually mimics native stupidity in a lot of ways.

"You're all guilty of groupthink!" -Tswizzle

"I'd sooner discuss this with Christians!" -also Tswizzle

 

[GenesisNemesis]

Natural sources of greenhouse gases like vulcanism have been ruled out by measurements of the contributions.

The irony of the poster contesting “settled science” by calling it groupthink and using the fucking internet to give voice to his abysmal ignorance, that irony is so overwhelming that it actually mimics native stupidity in a lot of ways.

It's hard to believe he's not an evangelical Christian. Then again, he did admit that he voted for Trump, so that might explain why he is a denialist.

Personally I think people like Tswizzle only rejected the supernatural, but their view of human nature/how society should be structured in the Hobbesian/Randian/Christian sense remains unchanged, and they never fundamentally examined it. And this has obvious consequences for how they view problems that affect everyone. Either that or he was just brainwashed by Fox News etc.

 

[steve_bank]

Philosophically one can say since is never settled. The rise of quantum and relativistic mechanics shows that. Newton was once condensed the end of science.

The Sherlock Holmes approach. When you have eliminated everything it can't be however improbable what is left has to be the answer.

As to who TSwizzle may be, perhaps one of those anti government Libertarians. Climate science as being forced on them by the state. Politicians' propaganda.

AI Overview
Libertarians hold diverse views on climate change, largely due to their emphasis on individual liberty and limited government. Many are skeptical of government-led climate policies, viewing them as potentially damaging to the economy, but some within the philosophy propose market-based solutions and advocate for using property rights to address pollution as a form of trespass. Others accept the reality of climate change but prioritize adaptation and argue that the free market can solve it, while some acknowledge that climate change violates individual rights and that polluters should be held responsible.

 

[bilby]

Natural sources of greenhouse gases like vulcanism have been ruled out by measurements of the contributions.

The irony of the poster contesting “settled science” by calling it groupthink and using the fucking internet to give voice to his abysmal ignorance, that irony is so overwhelming that it actually mimics native stupidity in a lot of ways.

It's hard to believe he's not an evangelical Christian. Then again, he did admit that he voted for Trump, so that might explain why he is a denialist.

Personally I think people like Tswizzle only rejected the supernatural, but their view of human nature/how society should be structured in the Hobbesian/Randian/Christian sense remains unchanged, and they never fundamentally examined it. And this has obvious consequences for how they view problems that affect everyone. Either that or he was just brainwashed by Fox News etc.

 

[GenesisNemesis]

Oh look! Another problem for the bullshit claim that it's just "natural variability".

Africa’s forests are now emitting more CO2 than they absorb

Logging and mining are destroying swathes of the Congo rainforest, with the result that African forests went from being a carbon sink to a carbon source in 2010 to 2017

www.newscientist.com

Another source that doesn't require registering:

Deforestation has turned Africa's forests from carbon sinks to carbon sources, new study finds

New research warns that Africa's forests, once vital allies in the fight against climate change, have turned from a carbon sink into a carbon source.

phys.org

 

[southernhybrid]

Oh look! Another problem for the bullshit claim that it's just "natural variability".

Africa’s forests are now emitting more CO2 than they absorb

Logging and mining are destroying swathes of the Congo rainforest, with the result that African forests went from being a carbon sink to a carbon source in 2010 to 2017

www.newscientist.com

That's like what is happening in the Amazon forests as well. Very sad that some people don't realize how important these forests are for the survival of humans and other species.

 

[TSwizzle]

Oh look! Another problem for the bullshit claim that it's just "natural variability".

Africa’s forests are now emitting more CO2 than they absorb

Logging and mining are destroying swathes of the Congo rainforest, with the result that African forests went from being a carbon sink to a carbon source in 2010 to 2017

www.newscientist.com

Another source that doesn't require registering:

Deforestation has turned Africa's forests from carbon sinks to carbon sources, new study finds

New research warns that Africa's forests, once vital allies in the fight against climate change, have turned from a carbon sink into a carbon source.

phys.org

lol, the first article

Deforestation in Democratic Republic of Congo… is higher than it was in the 2000s. And we all know that,” he says. “But whether that is enough to tip the whole carbon balance of the entire continent is unknown.”

The study also didn’t include the wet peatlands found underneath much of the Congo rainforest, which absorb a small amount of CO2 each year and hold about 30 billion tonnes of ancient carbon.

Not very convincing and again, highly biased.

The second article doesn’t even bother referencing the study and just spouts activist talking point.

Which proves my point yet again. You are not interested in science.

 

[GenesisNemesis]

Oh look! Another problem for the bullshit claim that it's just "natural variability".

Africa’s forests are now emitting more CO2 than they absorb

Logging and mining are destroying swathes of the Congo rainforest, with the result that African forests went from being a carbon sink to a carbon source in 2010 to 2017

www.newscientist.com

Another source that doesn't require registering:

Deforestation has turned Africa's forests from carbon sinks to carbon sources, new study finds

New research warns that Africa's forests, once vital allies in the fight against climate change, have turned from a carbon sink into a carbon source.

phys.org

lol, the first article

Deforestation in Democratic Republic of Congo… is higher than it was in the 2000s. And we all know that,” he says. “But whether that is enough to tip the whole carbon balance of the entire continent is unknown.”

The study also didn’t include the wet peatlands found underneath much of the Congo rainforest, which absorb a small amount of CO2 each year and hold about 30 billion tonnes of ancient carbon.

Not very convincing and again, highly biased.

So deforestation ij the Congo

Oh look! Another problem for the bullshit claim that it's just "natural variability".

Africa’s forests are now emitting more CO2 than they absorb

Logging and mining are destroying swathes of the Congo rainforest, with the result that African forests went from being a carbon sink to a carbon source in 2010 to 2017

www.newscientist.com

Another source that doesn't require registering:

Deforestation has turned Africa's forests from carbon sinks to carbon sources, new study finds

New research warns that Africa's forests, once vital allies in the fight against climate change, have turned from a carbon sink into a carbon source.

phys.org

lol, the first article

Deforestation in Democratic Republic of Congo… is higher than it was in the 2000s. And we all know that,” he says. “But whether that is enough to tip the whole carbon balance of the entire continent is unknown.”

The study also didn’t include the wet peatlands found underneath much of the Congo rainforest, which absorb a small amount of CO2 each year and hold about 30 billion tonnes of ancient carbon.

Not very convincing and again, highly biased.

The second article doesn’t even bother referencing the study and just spouts activist talking point.

Which proves my point yet again. You are not interested in science.

You may be shocked to hear that I don't give a single fuck about your opinion by now, given that you don't know anything about science, oh and you're a transphobe by the way.