and who collected this data dude? the scientists arent aware of this data dude?
Climate change predictions are based on computer-generated models
wrong. maybe when you speak about a topic you should actually understand it. predictions are based not only on satelite data which are measuring how much heat is leaving the atmosphere (its down due to increased CO2). but also of various temperature monitoring outposts. there are also more ways but 2 is good enough for now.
created with input data humans enter into it. All humans have their implicit biases. How can you trust a human so blindly? That's like believing in a God, is it not? You go on faith that it's real.
every scientific theory and science done is by humans interpreting data and facts. give me one that is not? oh so the scientists are jsut all entering the data wrong. i see now. also the germ theory of disease isnt true because humans discovered it? nor in relativity? science is peer reviewed meaning others attempt to find problems with their metholdogy, repeat it and disprove it or find flaws. thats why science works so well. it does its best to take human bias out of it better than any other methodology. its why we use it and its been so effective. i dont need to trust anything blindly because they have their work and data presented. which is then scrutinized by other scientists. your understanding of science is child like.
science is not faith. science is based on the best available evidence where best explanations are held as tentative theories subject to change on the revelation of new and more accurate evidence and data. faith is by definition based on no evidence, is not scrutinized, does not use the scientific method, does not rely on data. You rely on faith, as you do not have evidence for what you say. i rely on evidence. good effort though darling!
So all the modern science is wrong and biased due to scientists being human. or just the disciplines you do not like? Also if you are saying this you must have better data and studies? To make such a claim you must have analyzed their data and found the flaws correct? you have a deep understanding of the scientific method and climatology and have done studies before? great which papers have you published? which papers have you peer reviewed and which flaws did you find? vaguely hand waving an entire science away, as well as the scientific method becuase you say so is doltish.
you are a perfect example of an uneducated person talking about a highly advanced and complicated topic they dont understand and claiming they know better with no proof, no evidence and no studies.
what other science have you decided to handwave away based off your feelings and emotions, sorry i mean expert opinion as a lay person with no scientific training or degree? evolution? relativity?
reply
share
tvfan (9835)
a year ago
And you were complaining about warrior’s 1000 words, lmao.
You just replied here with 447 words of climate propaganda.
reply
share
B1cKsurN (15540)
a year ago
Omg... r/iamverysmart 🤣🤣🤣 Read up on horseshoe curve.
If you don't do the experiments yourself, you don't do the modeling, you don't collect nor input the datasets to the models...all you're doing is reading someone's else's work and regurgitating it on the internet like you're smart or something. That's called faith, Bro. 😉
Day to day temperatures are not indicators of climate change, and never will be. We are coming out of an ice age, its going to get warmer no matter what...we should be preparing for the inevitable because reversing it is not an actual option.
So, again....even if everyone does what the activists and scientists want. How do you control Russia, India, and China?
________________________
"When fascism comes to America, it will come in the name of 'Liberalism'."
-President Ronald Reagan
https://youtube.com/shorts/jPbGsvoNKMw?feature=share
Leftists always lie.
Wokeness is Fascism+Hypocrisy.
reply
share
Batfleck (1538)
a year ago
I dont need to be smart. that doesn't change the science. evolution isnt accepted science whether i am smart or not or personally believe it. you clearly arent and the facts are still facts.
Yes i am not an expert in biology, physics, geology and other topics. i rely on the experts with years of schooling to do the research as they have the necessary education. just like how if i dont take engineering it doesnt mean people don't build skyscrapers.
no bro it isnt faith bro. faith as i explained is based off zero evidence. the scientists are showing their work bro. it is being peer reviewed bro. they have evidence bro. You can see their studies yourself bro ;)
i never said day to day indicators were, but over time if on average the weathers changes for a period of years and decades, then what is that? what is longterm change in the normal weather patterns? hint it starts with C and rhymes with fit. how do you know we are coming out of an ice age? oh right the very same climatologists you claims are biased and untrustworthy and fabricating data! in other words, "the experts are only experts when it suits my narrative, when it doesn't they are entering data wrong!"
so, again, you do not understand science, you do not have any studies or evidence that backs you. you are a lay person which zero understanding.
reply
share
Tonyharrison (175)
a year ago
Agree. If somebody hasn't authored any peer reviewed publications in climatology, they should only cite other authors who have.
Of all the posts on this thread which don't accept climate change as a theory (unlike an estimated 97.1 percent of climate scientists), none of them refer to any peer reviewed research publications.
reply
share
tvfan (9835)
a year ago
It is 1.6% based on 64 articles from level-1 in table-2.
You clearly did not understand how the consensus was falsely misrepresented.
Consensus is a political factor not a measure of scientific validity.
But if Cook still wants a really big Consensus, he should look at the list of the 31,000+ Scientists who have actually signed specific statements as to the lack of adverse effects of increasing CO2 concentrations, the adverse effects of trying to limit them, and to CO2’s otherwise beneficial effect to life.
http://www.petitionproject.org/
Where are the anywhere near equivalent numbers of his Climate Scientists who have signed specific statements as to their rather apocalyptic views on the dangers of increasing CO2 levels? Otherwise Cook gets hoisted on his own Petard, beaten at his own irrelevant game.
reply
share
Tonyharrison (175)
a year ago
David Friedman claims we can only rely on Category 1 which refers to explicit endorsement with quantification. On the other hand we're talking about abstracts here and the 11,944 studies examined were conducted for a countless number of reasons in the field of climatology. If climate change were not a theory but a hypothesis that divided climatologists, we would assume that there would be more publications expressing explicit endorsement and rejection with quantification. From John Cook's findings the majority of publications (66.4%) did not state a clear position in the first place, because that would have not been the purpose of their studies. Read the article and he clearly explains how the 97.1% of climatologists who did express a position in their abstracts had done so as per Categories 1-3.
Category 3 "implies humans are causing global warming. E.g., research assumes greenhouse gas emissions cause warming without explicitly stating humans are the cause '...carbon sequestration in soil is important for mitigating global climate change'"
Therefore, the overwhelming majority of articles that expressed a position were implicitly or explicitly endorsing climate change in their abstracts regardless of whether explicit endorsement with quantification would had been the primary purpose of each study. Remember, he was examining 20 years of peer reviewed research in climatology for a countless number of purposes. He wasn't conducting a poll. And it's been 10 years since he published this article so have any of the climatologists in the publications he studied come forward and complained that their position has been misrepresented? Actually in section 3.2 he and his colleagues invited the authors they studied to offer a self assessment and of those who responded, the figure who rejected climate change was even lower (1.8%).
All David Friedman is doing is trying to do is cast doubt based publications' categories of endorsement. Were your links peer reviewed?
reply
share
tvfan (9835)
a year ago
Yes, by 31,000+ Scientists.
Once again: A consensus is based on politics not scientific validity.
reply
share
Tonyharrison (175)
a year ago
The Oregon Petition was not an authoritative source on climate science. Just because someone has a degree in a science-related discipline, that doesn't make them a climate scientist any more than it makes them a marine biologist or electrical engineer (unless of course, they actually have degrees in their given field). This video further points out why the Oregon Petition didn't indicate any real debate among climatologists: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=qZzwRwFDXw0
reply
share
tvfan (9835)
a year ago
So now you are trying to contradict 31,000+ Scientists, lmao.
Once again: A consensus is based on politics not scientific validity.
reply
share
Tonyharrison (175)
a year ago
How many of the signatories had qualifications and peer reviewed publications in climate science?What can you tell me about the video in my last post?
reply
share
tvfan (9835)
a year ago
All of them.
Once again: A consensus is based on politics not scientific validity.
reply
share
Tonyharrison (175)
a year ago
Can you name any and tell us what they have published?
reply
share
tvfan (9835)
a year ago
Their names are on the website.
Once again: A consensus is based on politics not scientific validity.
reply
share
Tonyharrison (175)
a year ago
Yes it lists their names but does it list their qualifications and publications?
reply
share
tvfan (9835)
a year ago
Are you seriously been obtuse?
If you want to continue believing in Cook’s fabricated lie that has been refuted and debunked for a decade, go right ahead.
If you want to contradict or dismiss 31,000+ scientists, go right ahead.
Keep drinking the climate Koolaid, they can always use more cult followers.
Once again: A consensus is based on politics not scientific validity.
reply
share
Batfleck (1538)
a year ago
another one of those "groups" that label in engineers and mathematicians in and claim they are experts on climatology?
why are they listing non climatologists as authority figures and knowledgable on the subject?
those cheap tactics have been long debunked and are a joke
i randomly started on the list then went down and picked some names with PHDs and googled them
Anthony J. Adrignolo- hes a doctor
Arthur G. Anderson- mathemetician
B. M. Anose- no information
Bernaard J. Abbott - two exist. one has a degree in education one in mathematics
Bernard Jeffrey Anderson- economics and sociology
Bonnie B. Amos- biology
Bradley C. Antanaitis -physics
Bradley C. Anthanaiti -chemistry
ive gone down the list and of these random ones i picked NOT ONE has a degree in climatology! why am i listening to mathematicians, economics and MDs on advanced climate science?
reply
share
tvfan (9835)
a year ago
Dumbass, the qualifications of all those scientists exceed climatologists.
Keep drinking the climate Kool-Aid, they can always use an extra cult follower.
Let us know when one of their climate predictions come true.
Once again: A consensus is based on politics not scientific validity.
reply
share
Batfleck (1538)
a year ago
"exceed". what does that even mean? how does a mathematician PHD "exceed" a climatologist in the subject of climatology?.
and im the dumbass? you must be a Poe little puppy! pretending and acting as if you are a completely clueless person right? i cannot imagine a human being being this dumb
reply
share
Tonyharrison (175)
a year ago
Thank you for answering the question for him. At least Art Robinson didn't try to hide the fact that to sign the Oregon Petition, you only needed to state you have a STEM qualification. An even more dubious petition we've seen on this thread is the "World Climate Declaration" produced by CLINTEL, an organisation with ties to the fossil fuel industry. It claimed to have been signed by 1200 climatologists when anyone was eligible to sign it, including a fisherman, sommelier, airline pilot and musician (https://factcheck.afp.com/doc.afp.com.32HG6HR).
reply
share
tvfan (9835)
a year ago
I have yet to see you or anyone else debunk or refute my 12 sources.
The 31,000+ scientists have more than enough qualifications.
Show me a list of climate scientists that have signed statements of the dangers of increasing CO2 levels that was not based on a political consensus like the one from Cook which was not measure by scientific validity and was also falsified.
Your AFP source comes from the green energy sector that receives profit from the climate hoax agenda.
Show me how many of their climate predictions have come true.
https://extinctionclock.org/
Once again: A consensus is based on politics not scientific validity.
reply
share
Batfleck (1538)
a year ago
i just did, i went down the list starting randomly and chose PDHs because i believe its easier to find their credentials. many arent even scientists. What does a degree in mathematics and sociology and economics have to do with climatology? its like going to an engineer with a PHD for medical advice and you saying "see they are a doctor!"
The scientists i did find aren't even in the relevant field. There is a reason there are so many disciplines in science, and even within those disciplines there are even more specific specializations. Because its extremely complex. I dont go to a climatologist for the lastest and best research in molecular biology. and i dont go to an evolutionary biologist for the latest and best research in theoretical physics.
You have abandoned all reasoning to push a narrative. you are over the hill and borderline insane.
Show me a list of climate scientists that have signed statements of the dangers of increasing CO2 levels that was not based on a political consensus like the one from Cook which was not measure by scientific validity and was also falsified.
there isnt a single legitimate organization, institution or group etc that represents climatologists that agrees with you. you are just claiming everyone who is a scientist who backs man made climate change is political and lying. without showing any evidence for that.
you seem to like massive paranoid conspiracy claims and never show evidence.
Show me how many of their climate predictions have come true.
How about the increase in extreme weather events?
The 10 hottest years on record in the last 120 years have in the last 20 years
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/world/the-uk-just-had-its-hottest-june-in-139-years-of-records-with-climate-change-a-factor#:~:text=Met%20Office%20scientists%20have%20said,than%20the%201991-2020%20average.
Met Office scientists have said that 2022 was the hottest year on record for the U.K., with an annual mean temperature of 10.03 C, or 0.89 C higher than the 1991-2020 average. Other European countries including France and Spain saw similar record highs last year.
Since records began over a century ago, all of the 10 annual highest temperature records in the U.K. have occurred from 2003
abit more anecdotal but the area i live in is a fairly moderate average southern Canadian climate. And yet despite never having a tornado in my lifetime, we had a massive storm and Tornado that knocked out power for weeks last year. then again we had another storm and Tornado this year.
reply
share
tvfan (9835)
a year ago
None of that refutes or debunks the 12 sources.
None of that proves that the 31+K Scientists are not qualified enough to determine the lack of adverse effects of increasing CO2 concentrations, the adverse effects of trying to limit them, and to CO2’s otherwise beneficial effect to life.
PBS…another leftist source which also has nothing to do with the climate predictions:
I have yet to see a list of non-political consensus based climatologists with specific signed statements that contradict, refute, or debunk the 31+K scientists.
Still waiting on that climate prediction, lol.
https://extinctionclock.org/
Try again.
reply
share
Batfleck (1538)
a year ago
what "12 sources"? are you having a mental break?
None of that proves that the 31+K Scientists are not qualified enough to determine the lack of adverse effects of increasing CO2 concentrations, the adverse effects of trying to limit them, and to CO2’s otherwise beneficial effect to life.
they aren't scientists. a mathematician isnt a scientist. what about having a PHD in mathematics makes them an expert on climatology? It absolutely does prove they have no business talking on a subject they haven't studied and dont know. you cant address what i said about molecular biologists because you have no argument.
PBS…another leftist source which also has nothing to
PBS is reporting the published numbers. I apologize if these facts make you said. it doesnt matter if fox, or PBS or OneAMerica reported them. the numbers are the numbers
Average temperature over decades is climate, and the prediction was we would see more extreme weather patterns. 10 heat records in the last 20 years is an extreme pattern. ergo a climate prediction.
Little puppy getting educated here
I have yet to see a list of non-political consensus based climatologists with specific signed statements that contradict the 31+K scientist
you dont have 31k scientists
you have abunch of mathematicians and economists and sociologists talking about a field they have no education, no training and publish no studies in.
so do you go to an engineer when you need medical advice? he is a doctor right? so he automatically understands every single other feild?
reply
share
tvfan (9835)
a year ago
You are regurgitating. You have nothing but excuses.
I’m still waiting on my previous points.
Try again.
reply
share
Batfleck (1538)
a year ago
Yes i have nothing but excuses. that having a math PHD does not make you an expert in climatology.
anymore than the people on your list with a sociology degree are an expert in molecular biology.
or the engineers on that list are experts on human health and are physicians
or the economics on your list are experts in structural engineering.
having a PHD in one subject doesnt make you an authority on all disciplines that have PHDs.
my puppy is a good follower today. i wish my opponents were more mentally capable. but i will settle for educating and humiliating you ;*
reply
share
tvfan (9835)
a year ago
-You can’t prove that they are not qualified enough.
-Once again, you make more excuses.
-I’m still waiting on my previous points.
Try harder.
reply
share
Batfleck (1538)
a year ago
the burden is on you to prove they are.
you have given a list of engineers, mathematicians, sociologists, economists and other scientists not in the field of climatology
you dont understand logic compared to excuses
so do you go to an engineer for medical advice becuase they ahve a PHD? if you had a letter signed by 20 thousand engineers who said cancer isnt real and cancer treatements do not work
would you listen to them or the entire consensus of M.D's and physicians?
reply
share
tvfan (9835)
a year ago
More excuses...…I’m still waiting.
reply
share
Batfleck (1538)
a year ago
you dont understand what the word excuse is :)
the puppy is angry today but its been a pleasure humiliating you. why is it only i answer questions?
so do you go to an engineer for medical advice becuase they ahve a PHD? if you had a letter signed by 20 thousand engineers who said cancer isnt real and cancer treatements do not work
would you listen to them or the entire consensus of M.D's and physicians?
reply
share
tvfan (9835)
a year ago
More excuses...…I’m still waiting.
reply
share
Batfleck (1538)
a year ago
ive put you into self defence repeat mode!
so can you finally answer?'
o do you go to an engineer for medical advice becuase they ahve a PHD? if you had a letter signed by 20 thousand engineers who said cancer isnt real and cancer treatements do not work
would you listen to them or the entire consensus of M.D's and physicians?
reply
share
tvfan (9835)
a year ago
You and the other sock puppet have made nothing but redirects, deflections, and excuses.
You are a climate cult follower trying to convince yourself just like the alphabet cult that you disagree with.
Once again: A consensus is based on politics not scientific validity.
reply
share
Batfleck (1538)
a year ago
yes i have redirect, deflected and made excuses.
by addressing what you said head on, and literally investigating your link and went though 8 people on the list.
then showing why what you said makes no sense
and how a list of mathematicians, economists and sociologists aren't experts on climatology.
by that logic are climatologists experts on sociology?
you are being a good puppy today! following me around real close listening to my every word. ill ask again
do you go to an engineer for medical advice because they have a PHD? if you had a letter signed by 20 thousand engineers who said cancer isnt real and cancer treatments do not work would you believe it?
reply
share
tvfan (9835)
a year ago
Apparently, you don’t understand what a “scientist” is:
“A scientist is someone who systematically gathers and uses research and evidence, to make hypotheses and test them, to gain and share understanding and knowledge.”
reply
share
Batfleck (1538)
a year ago
by that definition a mathematician isnt a scientist, nor is an engineer, nor is a an economist
reply
share
Batfleck (1538)
a year ago
It claimed to have been signed by 1200 climatologists when anyone was eligible to sign it, including a fisherman, sommelier, airline pilot and musician "
There is truly no low to the desperation deniers will go to make their groups seem legitimate and supported.
Well fishermen and sommeliers (working on a patio) both work outside! so of course they are experts on climatology!
reply
share
tvfan (9835)
a year ago
Many scientists work for themselves, instead of working for a lab. The reason being, being a scientist is a state of mind and a behavior, rather than a job title. Thus, anyone can be a scientist regardless of age, gender, religion, nationality, or race.
Anyone can be a scientist in some sense. Some professions have legal requirements for their practice (e.g. licensure) and some scientists are independent scientists meaning that they practice science on their own, but to practice science there are no known licensure requirements.
Once again:
A consensus is based on politics not scientific validity.
reply
share
Batfleck (1538)
a year ago
you are mudding "anyone can do science", ie i can go out, make a hypothesis and test it.
which a scientific discipline, with experts in that specific field, getting years of education, and specifically working in that field, doing research, peer reviewing each others research and being up to date on the newest data and research
Nice attempt to muddy waters. but i am better than you mentally.
SO what specific climate science have you done? feel free to private message me your study. your hypothesis, your methodology, the tests you ran, the data you collected and who you sent your study to be peer reviewed by.
i am so eager to read my puppies research
reply
share
Batfleck (1538)
a year ago
what does anyone can run a test have to do with climatology? and the data and studies and research done on it? and the overwhelming data and consensus pointing to man made climate change?
anyone can go "do math". this doesnt make me an expert mathematician, and if i claim Math is flawed, wrong and biased, i have to demonstrate why that is so and why all the experts are wrong and i am right
what can you demonstrate?
reply
share
Batfleck (1538)
a year ago
is that not funny? They have no degree or education on the topic. they never cite peer reviews research? yet know the "real" science is on their side or all wrong
or that they believe climatologists research when they site it like this guy did with ice ages, yet the other stuff climatologists say is all made up, a lie, data being entered wrong on purpose. all claims he cannot show are true.
reply
share
Tonyharrison (175)
a year ago
True. I guess there are always going to be people who reject science such as UFO enthusiasts rejecting astrophysics, insisting that the CIA and Stephen Hawking lied to us about extraterrestrial contact.
I guess with climate change denial, a lot of people have a hard time accepting that the economic losses in reducing carbon emissions now could offset even greater losses of inaction later on.
reply
share
B1cKsurN (15540)
a year ago
How do you control Russia, India, and China from continuing to be world polluters?
________________________
"When fascism comes to America, it will come in the name of 'Liberalism'."
-President Ronald Reagan
https://youtube.com/shorts/jPbGsvoNKMw?feature=share
Leftists always lie.
Wokeness is Fascism+Hypocrisy.
reply
share
Batfleck (1538)
a year ago
if you cant control china and india and russia from releasing Nuclear plumes into the atmsphere. does that make nuclear plumes safe and we should do the same?
https://moviechat.org/bd0000082/Politics/64bdd94503162c637607a648/Climate-Change-Realistic-Solutions?reply=64ce3c968cd8f94f9a532431
you tucked tail and ran form our conversation above when i demonstrated you
-dont understand climate
-refused to watch a video because you already know better than an actual scientist.
-tried to claim scientific dat entered by humans is flawed. then called you out because all scientific research and data is collected by humans
-dont understand what faith is
and yet you came back like a little scaredy cat and chicken. i will engage with you once you show you arent a coward and stop being so weak and feeble
reply
share
B1cKsurN (15540)
a year ago
LOL...is this the post you're talking about?
Dude, posting internet scripture is not you "demonstrating" that you can do a web search to find link that conform to your biases.
I see you still can't answer my question, so why should I (or anyone else) give a fuck what you have to say? Like, it's all insults...no substance at all.
This must be an Immattj sock account or something. Or who was that other loser that was following me all over the board that got himself banned? You're not my first stalker lol.
________________________
"When fascism comes to America, it will come in the name of 'Liberalism'."
-President Ronald Reagan
https://youtube.com/shorts/jPbGsvoNKMw?feature=share
Leftists always lie.
Wokeness is Fascism+Hypocrisy.
reply
share
Batfleck (1538)
a year ago
science is now "internet scripture"? great so post your studies, show them all wroong.
You clearly know more than all the scientists. so what you need to do is show me how
-C02 isnt a greenhouse gas
-humans havent released 3 trillion tonnes of CO2 since 1850
- this hasnt made C02 levels rise as PPM in the atmosphere and caused them to doubled since 1850.
-cause and effect dont exist. you can double greenhouse gases but global temperatures will not rise.
nice dodge again. trying to claim im a sock because you cant answer simple questions.
reply
share
B1cKsurN (15540)
a year ago
Yeah, you're posting with way too much familiarity to be new. This is definitely a ban evasion account or a sock. 🤣🤣🤣
Which is it?
________________________
"When fascism comes to America, it will come in the name of 'Liberalism'."
-President Ronald Reagan
https://youtube.com/shorts/jPbGsvoNKMw?feature=share
Leftists always lie.
Wokeness is Fascism+Hypocrisy.
reply
share
Batfleck (1538)
a year ago
familiarity? please explain?
but good dodge attempt. so ill ask again
You clearly know more than all the scientists. so what you need to do is show me how
-C02 isnt a greenhouse gas
-humans havent released 3 trillion tonnes of CO2 since 1850
- this hasnt made C02 levels rise as PPM in the atmosphere and caused them to doubled since 1850.
-cause and effect dont exist. you can double greenhouse gases but global temperatures will not rise.
reply
share
B1cKsurN (15540)
a year ago
Now I remember....you post with the same vigor and dumbassery as LeoDiCaprio
Welcome back. Now stop stalking me. Again.
________________________
"When fascism comes to America, it will come in the name of 'Liberalism'."
-President Ronald Reagan
https://youtube.com/shorts/jPbGsvoNKMw?feature=share
Leftists always lie.
Wokeness is Fascism+Hypocrisy.
reply
share
Batfleck (1538)
a year ago
im Immattj now im LeoDiCaprio? TVfan said i was Keelia. I am not sure which boogeyman i will be next.
ill ask again
You clearly know more than all the scientists. so what you need to do is show me how
-C02 isnt a greenhouse gas
-humans havent released 3 trillion tonnes of CO2 since 1850
- this hasnt made C02 levels rise as PPM in the atmosphere and caused them to doubled since 1850.
-cause and effect dont exist. you can double greenhouse gases but global temperatures will not rise.
reply
share
B1cKsurN (15540)
a year ago
CO2 is plant food. Are you sure high levels of CO2 isn't the result of mass-deforestation? That is not caused by individual citizens, that is done by Woke Corporations to produce cheap goods(in China) because Americans are trained to be consumers to keep the 1% rich, and you poor.
How many trees have you planted this year? Why aren't you doing your part?
Tip: YOU shouldn't have to plant a shit ton of trees.
The fact is, is that unless you stop all the production factories in Asia....anything done in the US is pretty much pointless. You have to disincentivize profit, or find a way to make Corporation return to producing quality shit that last a long time. Not cheap replaceable crap that does nothing but fill up landfills.
________________________
"When fascism comes to America, it will come in the name of 'Liberalism'."
-President Ronald Reagan
https://youtube.com/shorts/jPbGsvoNKMw?feature=share
Leftists always lie.
Wokeness is Fascism+Hypocrisy.
reply
share
Batfleck (1538)
a year ago
We are sure it isnt mass deforestation because we know how much CO2 we are putting in the atmosphere as humans and how much is absorbed. as i said around 3 trillion tonnes since 1850. this doesnt disappear magically. trees are only temporary containers for CO2. while its presented that plants "clean CO2 out of the air". every single molecule of CO2 is released when a tree or plant dies.
Theres a good video by Thunderf00t on youtube an actual scientists that talks about how tree planting is useless. for example just for the us to be "carbon neutral", it would need to plant 165 000 000 000 a YEAR. for every single year. 165 billion trees indefinitely. Thats just the USA. that is impossible for many reasons. that is how we know deforestation isnt the cause because the loss of trees doesnt account nearly enough for the increased CO2 levels.
this is why we know it isnt some woke "left wing government scientist lie". this is why all the scientists agree.
-CO2 emissions are massive and we know their levels
-we know it wasn't deforestation it was emissions that raised CO2 levels . theres an estimate 3.04 trillion trees on planet earth. we would need to plant 1/18th the total trees on earth JUST to cover US carbon emissions. this means emissions are far outpacing any effect from trees or lack there of
-CO2 is a greenhouse gas and is heating up the earth.
reply
share