Well, so what about it?
We’re going to blow right through that 2°C.
So what you want to do about it?
Do you see the programming? If it’s coming from a real human, it’s automatic. His post takes the phrase “he said” from some list of phrases this dadada has, phrases that add nothing to the conversation, that leave you to interpret and react to and ask for more. If you ask for more, you’ll get more of the same. If you don’t, you’ll get a “hey look at this” and a link about something on the topic.
The second half of his post is copied and pasted from yours, to give the apppearance of interaction. Did see how when I asked for a dialog I got a haha, and a comment that I need to go learn something. It takes zero effort to come up with posts like that.
1 Like
Interesting Lausten and I see what you’re saying.
At least he used a reliable source CarbonBrief
I need your help.
A climate change skeptic is telling me that he does not believe that man is responsible for the climate change, as man production of carbon is a very low fraction of the total production of carbon on earth.
I need a simple and and clear answer, with a reference.
Found a great fact check. It could be where the person is getting their facts. Our percentage of production is 33% since 1850, not low at all. The important number is the ppm in the atmosphere. It wouldn’t really matter where it was coming from. Since that has gone above 350, it has become something we all need to be concerned about.
Humans have significant impact on atmospheric CO2 | Fact check (usatoday.com)
There’s a huge flux of CO2 naturally occurring, we are adding on top of that.
There’s also the resource at SkepticalScience:
It’s not us
- There’s no empirical evidence
- Increasing CO2 has little to no effect
- CO2 is just a trace gas
- CO2 has a short residence time
- CO2 effect is saturated
- Greenhouse effect has been falsified
- 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
- Venus doesn’t have a runaway greenhouse effect
- CO2 only causes 35% of global warming
- Removing all CO2 would make little difference
- Climate’s changed before
- Medieval Warm Period was warmer
- Was Greenland really green in the past?
- We’re coming out of the Little Ice Age
- CO2 was higher in the past
- Arctic was warmer in 1940
- It’s a 1500 year cycle
- It’s a climate regime shift
- It’s a natural cycle
- It warmed just as fast in 1860-1880 and 1910-1940
- Most of the last 10,000 years were warmer
- Humans survived past climate changes
- Heatwaves have happened before
- There’s no correlation between CO2 and temperature
Thanks very much friends
Simplest question you have ever ask. It’s the swamp. How can you not know that!
I’ve been having the same problem with a pharmacist at work. He doesn’t believe in Climate Change period.
What about those that say they believe but dont agree with taking action?
They are a problem also in my opinion.
Somehow, they are worst than the unbelievers !!! And they feed them !!!
1 Like
1 million acres in Texas Panhandle region north of Amarillo gone in wildfire
Gone?
How do you figure that?
It was a brush fire!
Guess you haven’t been around much.
I won’t even bother trying to explain.
But I suggest you gain a little more experiences, before making hysterical melodramatic posts.
On second thought:
As well you shouldn’t. When he has no one else to insult, he just types a headline from yesterday’s news. I silenced him for a month.
Sorry, just noticed that in another post, well done.
Still, that was simply too silly to allow a free pass.
Bush fires don’t destroy land, they can destroy homes and infrastructure. Some extremely hot forest fires can sterilize soil. But, that’s another different story.
It’s terrifying how many people are so totally disconnected from the eco-systems we depend on, it’s absolutely as bad as having no clue where one’s own body came from or how it operates. I mean we don’t need a college degree to comprehend the important fundamentals.
And, you don’t need a degree to write a non-sequitor, disconnected from anything that would add to the dialog. It’s a post to elicit more posts. If you type enough words you will give him something that he can twist, take out of context, make a joke about, point and laugh like a bully and take the conversation further away from intelligent discourse.
Sure, sure, that’s how it is.
I think your words would carry more weight with me, if there weren’t so many examples of you engaging with the dada…
And we’re still left with the fact that he represents the actually thinking process of a great many people these days, in this Hollywood Nation of consumerism driven superficiality and it’s accompanying disingenuous melodramatic rhetoric.
You got me there. It’s a great area between moderator and member. I try to limit myself to pointing out he didn’t contribute, or that he insulted. I tried to engage him at first, which usually proves they don’t want to engage.
It would be great if everyone followed the rules, and when some don’t, it would be great if everyone else did, by using the flags, messaging, and complaint area.
Okay, see your point.
I’ll try, but I never was much for tattling, or flagging every goofy thing, more of a deal-with-it kinda guy.
Besides, like I keep pointing out, there is an audience, and these are big memes being repeated and they sometimes deserve clarification. Like the thought that every wild fire means the end of the world for that area. Not to minimize the reality, or that we are creating conditions for ever worse wild fires moving forward.
It’s like medicine v poison - it’s all in the dose.
Those natural balance that some folks ridicule with such alacrity.