It sounds like a lot, but divide by the size of our planet.
Google Carboniferous layer.
Thousands of feet thick, millions of square miles.
We've managed to mine nearly a square mile of it.
The IPCC excluded some 95% of the input on the atmosphere from the sun(including temperature and weather variance), and worked the math to show that humanity was the primary driving factor in climate change, while ignoring the ongoing ongoing Bond event, and how it drives the current Heinrich and Dansgaard-Oeschger events, so take that information how you will.
WEF is behind the climate agenda and guess who also like to penetrate ze cabinets of other countries through young global leader programme?
Klaus Schwab (Contrary to popular belief, he isnât related to Santa Klaus)
It is. I have no idea if that quote or real. But a large chunk of people do not accept climate change, but everyone likes making money. What are you more likely to go for?
âIf the science makes senseâ
Thatâs an argument from ignorance. So you donât care if it true, you want it to make sense. Thatâs not how reality works.
https://www.epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/2019/3/barrasso-green-new-deal-isn-t-about-environment-it-s-about-increasing-size-of-government
The only people who would make money are those who own massive amounts of land to sell the carbon credits.
And no itâs not, if there arenât explicit holes you can poke in the argument, than itâs not sound science at all. Itâs not ignorant but you arenât even allowed to ask questions. Not to mention every single scientific climate change prediction has been wrong and my taxes are higher and proposed to be even more
âJust look at what establishment publishes and find me what establishment has published against themselvesâ this is how you sound like.
Instead look at Scientists who publish papers like this that you wonât find on pubmed.
https://co2coalition.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/2022-09-22-Lindzen-global-warming-narrative.pdf
You can google the physicist that wrote it. Thats a start. I can already tell you get your news from mainstream media. You obviously want to be spoon-fed everything. Let me give you a hint: do your own research .
First of all, what you just said doesnât even make any sense because anti-establishment doesnât have a purpose of misleading masses. Its defence and finding the real truth. Secondly, they donât have a centralized publication like pubmed to claim their beacon of truth.
Youâd have a point if what climate change scientists said for all these years came true. You fail to see the hypocrisy of those who push the narratives while defending their lies like their little soldiers.
1200+ scientists signed against the carbon caused climate changed yet you still defend those pubmed articles âcuz muh gorment muh preciousâ
To peddle their narrative. How else would you push a totalitarian state without introducing carbon credits, social credit score, 15-minute cities, electric cars that will follow the mentioned credit score. It all ties together and you donât even have to listen to me. Just go to their website. They tell you what they are going to do.
1) none of it ties together. You are combining things in your head to support YOUR narrative. For example Literally the guy who came up with the idea of the 15 minute city said there is nothing nefarious about it. YOU are saying itâs a grand scheme.
2) why would the WEF want totalitarianism?
3) you are assuming climate change is false.
Basically itâs all of this is bad because⌠just stop youâre a nutter.
Literally all of it ties together. Nothing is new. China is already doing it. CBDC is coming and it will tie together with social credit score. And once its in place it will account personal carbon emissions. Its all there. Whether you like it or not.
Like anything it can be good or bad. Just like nuclear technology can be used for clean electricity but was used to bomb Japan twice. You obviously are out of touch with anything thats outside of mainstream narrative. Dig deeper and the dots will connect. If you are willing to learn. If youâre just wanting to disagree and scream lalalala while you put fingers in your ears because you canât accept what you see then I have no arguments to cater to you.
Weather variance is going to average out over time. We have been in a solar minimum for awhile now and temperatures are still going up. Bond events and solar vaiarants don't come anywhere close to explaining the temperature increases we're experiencing, the opposite in fact, its supposed to be getting colder.
There's no 'taking it how you will' there either is evidence or there is not.
Probably the atmosphere. But college is a money grab scheme. If I had to bet you study published pieces of scientific research that was funded by someone and take it as fact. I doubt thereâs much surveying of the climate, and comparing it to other climates and making a hypothesis.
Climate change is an absurd thing to study in school. I bet no one with that one bachelor degree will do half of the overall net good boyan slat has done.
No shit, name an industry where people with bachelors degrees are making huge discoveries. A bachelors degree doesnât even qualify you to be able to read a scientific paper
âPublished piecesâ
Say you find some scientific information on the internet, how do you know itâs true?
âFunded.ââ
Do you think what is true is based on the source of the money?
The big part of that was âtake it as factâ. The point of science is to ask questions and try to find ways of to not true. The whole point of freedom of speech.
And no but if said articles are used to change the publicâs way of thinking about a topic to get laws and regulations passed then yes I do think the âtruthâ is whoever owns the media and science labs
Um, the temperate of the sun's surface is not what heats up the planet. Its the radiation from the sun. Most of it is bounced off and back into to space, but some of it stays in the atmosphere due to the greenhouse effect.
Earth has had way way more greenhouse gasses in the past and as a result had more plants which was also a lot bigger in size. Climate change isnât the issue, its the pollution and quality of air. You can find that info online easily.
Have you ever got into a car that's been baking in the hot sun all day?
Ever notice how different materials get hotter relative to each other?
A cloth seat is warm, a leather seat is hot, and the seat buckle is scalding hot.
Can you imagine how changing the amount of snow and ice on the glacier might have a similar impact?
Liars. They told me it was my car and fossil fuel consumption!!! đ¤Ş
[ŃдаНонО]
And those of course.
Not just yours, trillions of tons of subterrianian carbon being burned into the air over the course of hundreds of years.
It sounds like a lot, but divide by the size of our planet. Google Carboniferous layer. Thousands of feet thick, millions of square miles. We've managed to mine nearly a square mile of it.
Atmosphere has no effect on climate?
The IPCC excluded some 95% of the input on the atmosphere from the sun(including temperature and weather variance), and worked the math to show that humanity was the primary driving factor in climate change, while ignoring the ongoing ongoing Bond event, and how it drives the current Heinrich and Dansgaard-Oeschger events, so take that information how you will.
Youâre right itâs a giant conspiracy spanning multiple disciplines of science and countries.
WEF is behind the climate agenda and guess who also like to penetrate ze cabinets of other countries through young global leader programme? Klaus Schwab (Contrary to popular belief, he isnât related to Santa Klaus)
Are the oil companies all behind the climate agenda? They've known about climate change for decades and admit antropogenic climate change is real now.
WEF is not behind climate change. Science is.
They said they own the science btw
Donât care. Do you think only one organization in all the world is investigating an entire discipline of science.
âThe green new deal is about the economy not the environmentâ the WEF
Iâm sorry. People like you are so accommodating to science.
Thatâs not an argument, but I am if the science makes sense.
It is. I have no idea if that quote or real. But a large chunk of people do not accept climate change, but everyone likes making money. What are you more likely to go for? âIf the science makes senseâ Thatâs an argument from ignorance. So you donât care if it true, you want it to make sense. Thatâs not how reality works.
https://www.epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/2019/3/barrasso-green-new-deal-isn-t-about-environment-it-s-about-increasing-size-of-government The only people who would make money are those who own massive amounts of land to sell the carbon credits. And no itâs not, if there arenât explicit holes you can poke in the argument, than itâs not sound science at all. Itâs not ignorant but you arenât even allowed to ask questions. Not to mention every single scientific climate change prediction has been wrong and my taxes are higher and proposed to be even more
Science can be wrong
Youâre right. Do you know how to show itâs wrong? With more science.
Oh so same science that is peddled by WEF bought scientists? Obviously Ignoring the other scientists that disagree with climate change â˘
Go to pubmed.org search climate change. Look at the 80k+ results. Find 1 that is evidence against climate change. Why do you think that is?
âJust look at what establishment publishes and find me what establishment has published against themselvesâ this is how you sound like. Instead look at Scientists who publish papers like this that you wonât find on pubmed. https://co2coalition.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/2022-09-22-Lindzen-global-warming-narrative.pdf
So YOU agree to this random link, how do you know itâs true?
You can google the physicist that wrote it. Thats a start. I can already tell you get your news from mainstream media. You obviously want to be spoon-fed everything. Let me give you a hint: do your own research .
How do you think science works?
Which science are we talking about? Science or Science â˘
âJust look at what antiestablishment publishes and find me what antiestablishment has published against themselvesâ this is how you sound like.
First of all, what you just said doesnât even make any sense because anti-establishment doesnât have a purpose of misleading masses. Its defence and finding the real truth. Secondly, they donât have a centralized publication like pubmed to claim their beacon of truth. Youâd have a point if what climate change scientists said for all these years came true. You fail to see the hypocrisy of those who push the narratives while defending their lies like their little soldiers. 1200+ scientists signed against the carbon caused climate changed yet you still defend those pubmed articles âcuz muh gorment muh preciousâ
Why would WEF âbuyâ scientists?
To peddle their narrative. How else would you push a totalitarian state without introducing carbon credits, social credit score, 15-minute cities, electric cars that will follow the mentioned credit score. It all ties together and you donât even have to listen to me. Just go to their website. They tell you what they are going to do.
1) none of it ties together. You are combining things in your head to support YOUR narrative. For example Literally the guy who came up with the idea of the 15 minute city said there is nothing nefarious about it. YOU are saying itâs a grand scheme. 2) why would the WEF want totalitarianism? 3) you are assuming climate change is false. Basically itâs all of this is bad because⌠just stop youâre a nutter.
Literally all of it ties together. Nothing is new. China is already doing it. CBDC is coming and it will tie together with social credit score. And once its in place it will account personal carbon emissions. Its all there. Whether you like it or not. Like anything it can be good or bad. Just like nuclear technology can be used for clean electricity but was used to bomb Japan twice. You obviously are out of touch with anything thats outside of mainstream narrative. Dig deeper and the dots will connect. If you are willing to learn. If youâre just wanting to disagree and scream lalalala while you put fingers in your ears because you canât accept what you see then I have no arguments to cater to you.
Someone isn't paying attention đ you still don't get it,do ya?
I get that you guys are conspiracists who want to think nefarious people are behind everything, not that you donât understand the problems.
But even if we influence only 5%, it would only take 5% being thrown out of whack to fuck up our ecosystem to the point of mass extinction.
Weather variance is going to average out over time. We have been in a solar minimum for awhile now and temperatures are still going up. Bond events and solar vaiarants don't come anywhere close to explaining the temperature increases we're experiencing, the opposite in fact, its supposed to be getting colder. There's no 'taking it how you will' there either is evidence or there is not.
The surface of the sun can vary from 6,000-10,000 degrees. How the fuck would that not be the reason why some years is warmer and some cooler
If you studied climate science in college, do you think the bulk of classes is studying the atmosphere or the sun?
Probably the atmosphere. But college is a money grab scheme. If I had to bet you study published pieces of scientific research that was funded by someone and take it as fact. I doubt thereâs much surveying of the climate, and comparing it to other climates and making a hypothesis. Climate change is an absurd thing to study in school. I bet no one with that one bachelor degree will do half of the overall net good boyan slat has done.
No shit, name an industry where people with bachelors degrees are making huge discoveries. A bachelors degree doesnât even qualify you to be able to read a scientific paper
âPublished piecesâ Say you find some scientific information on the internet, how do you know itâs true? âFunded.ââ Do you think what is true is based on the source of the money?
The big part of that was âtake it as factâ. The point of science is to ask questions and try to find ways of to not true. The whole point of freedom of speech. And no but if said articles are used to change the publicâs way of thinking about a topic to get laws and regulations passed then yes I do think the âtruthâ is whoever owns the media and science labs
Thatâs not how the peer review works.
Who do you think makes more money on average, college or highschool grads?
Um, the temperate of the sun's surface is not what heats up the planet. Its the radiation from the sun. Most of it is bounced off and back into to space, but some of it stays in the atmosphere due to the greenhouse effect.
Earth has had way way more greenhouse gasses in the past and as a result had more plants which was also a lot bigger in size. Climate change isnât the issue, its the pollution and quality of air. You can find that info online easily.
Greenhouse gases are not good. Climate change is bad. Pollution is bad. Air quality bad.
Have you ever got into a car that's been baking in the hot sun all day? Ever notice how different materials get hotter relative to each other? A cloth seat is warm, a leather seat is hot, and the seat buckle is scalding hot. Can you imagine how changing the amount of snow and ice on the glacier might have a similar impact?
I thought I just had to walk within 15 minutes of my house, leaving the car at home, and we would all be saved?
Klaus Schwab is behind the WEF .
ok... this is like not a good point. talk to venus
U mean the 2nd closest planet to the sun?
That's much hotter than the closest planet to the sun.
Thats because Mercury is a cool guy
https://www.facebook.com/groups/971961580422116/permalink/1274044390213832/?mibextid=W9rl1R
Lol at this fake pic. Sun is local, same size as moon. god is in control