5 ms·

I didn't find anything in the NASA article in regards to CO2 levels plateauing. Interesting perspective though. Perhaps this is why the article was removed?

incomingpain 4y ago
>I didn't find anything in the NASA article in regards to CO2 levels plateauing. Interesting perspective though. Perhaps this is why the article was removed? The common argument from climate deniers is that the world has greatly increased the amount of green. I zoomed in on Austin Texas because of Tesla's factory and omg it's so green... That we seemingly have plateaud on CO2, climate change in general. That tons of the predictions of doom and gloom should have happened already but haven't because of this. I guess climate deniers also point to. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_maximum#/media/File:Sunspot_Numbers.png https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_maximum#/media/File:Suns... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_maximum https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_maximum We also have been living in a solar maximum since about 1850. Which corresponds with the global increase in temperature that has been proposed to be climate change. Just because the solar cycle changed and is significantly higher completely corresponding with every climate change graph that also usually starts around 1850. This new plateau of climate change as well as CO2 corresponds with the new solar cycle. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change#Solar_and_volcanic_activity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change#Solar_and_volca... Solar activity is not considered to be part of climate change at all. Not part of any of the models. We also haven't named the new solar cycle since 2009 because it might lead to people thinking the wrong thing about climate change. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_hiatus https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_hiatus or https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_hiatus#/media/File:Global_warming_hiatus.gif https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_hiatus#/media/F... The actual reasoning is that haitus on warming like this occasionally happens. We can't let this knowledge to get out because climate deniers will misuse it to point to these other factors that are not factors at all.
- aww_dang 4y ago
  Suppressing information to prevent someone with an opposing view from using it doesn't seem honest at all. It does not inspire confidence. Nor does it present an image of impartial research.
  - incomingpain 4y ago
    >Suppressing information to prevent someone with an opposing view from using it doesn't seem honest at all. It does not inspire confidence. Nor does it present an image of impartial research. Obviously I'm nobody and not the one doing anything. Or am I Al Gore? You'll never know, muhahaha. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geologic_temperature_record#/media/File:All_palaeotemps.svg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geologic_temperature_record#/m... Obviously climate change is real. 50 million years ago during the dinosaurs, temperatures in the eocene were 14c or 25f warmer. In the last 20,000 years the earth has gotten 6c or 10f warmer. We switched from a too-cold climate, an ice age, to much nicer and freeing up much land. The climate obviously changed. 100% we will see the climate change more unless we proactively try to control the climate. Now we don't have a good track record on trying to control nature. The indigenous of north america regularly used forest fires: https://www.history.com/news/native-american-wildfires https://www.history.com/news/native-american-wildfires We in our wisdom banned that decades ago: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/decades-mismanagement-led-choked-forests-now-it-s-time-clear-n1243599 https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/decades-mismanagement-l... Dont even talk to the aussies on mismanaged ecosystems... they are sore. But I'm sure we'll get it right this time. Our new disinformation governance board won't allow anyone to post anything negative about it.
    - aww_dang 4y ago
      "Climate change is real", is a masterwork of sloganeering. It frames the discussion perfectly. Is anyone arguing that the climate does not change on the geological timescale? Of course not. Yet from this point the propagandists can equate "change" with "impending doom" via sleight of hand. Conveniently enough there is a solution provided. Simply accept central planning as your savior to avoid the hell-fires of climate doom. If we are going to legislate the weather or enact regulations to achieve a climatic outcome, then we should at least establish what the ideal climate is. The sloganeering breaks down from this point. They cannot demand climate stasis. It is entirely unreasonable and unprecedented. Ecosystems or mismanaged ecosystems, these are red herrings. Look at the proposed solutions. Consider that these were the end goals, independent of the provided doomsaying rationales. The goal is economic dominance and central planning. The doomsaying is merely the sales pitch. For me, this is a logical arrangement. Much more so than the deceptive sloganeering. Of course, as Al Gore, you would probably like to dismiss that as conspiratorial thinking, but I am onto you.

incomingpain 4y ago

>I didn't find anything in the NASA article in regards to CO2 levels plateauing. Interesting perspective though. Perhaps this is why the article was removed? The common argument from climate deniers is that the world has greatly increased the amount of green. I zoomed in on Austin Texas because of Tesla's factory and omg it's so green... That we seemingly have plateaud on CO2, climate change in general. That tons of the predictions of doom and gloom should have happened already but haven't because of this. I guess climate deniers also point to. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_maximum#/media/File:Sunspot_Numbers.png https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_maximum#/media/File:Suns... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_maximum https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_maximum We also have been living in a solar maximum since about 1850. Which corresponds with the global increase in temperature that has been proposed to be climate change. Just because the solar cycle changed and is significantly higher completely corresponding with every climate change graph that also usually starts around 1850. This new plateau of climate change as well as CO2 corresponds with the new solar cycle. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change#Solar_and_volcanic_activity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change#Solar_and_volca... Solar activity is not considered to be part of climate change at all. Not part of any of the models. We also haven't named the new solar cycle since 2009 because it might lead to people thinking the wrong thing about climate change. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_hiatus https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_hiatus or https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_hiatus#/media/File:Global_warming_hiatus.gif https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_hiatus#/media/F... The actual reasoning is that haitus on warming like this occasionally happens. We can't let this knowledge to get out because climate deniers will misuse it to point to these other factors that are not factors at all.

aww_dang 4y ago
Suppressing information to prevent someone with an opposing view from using it doesn't seem honest at all. It does not inspire confidence. Nor does it present an image of impartial research.
- incomingpain 4y ago
  >Suppressing information to prevent someone with an opposing view from using it doesn't seem honest at all. It does not inspire confidence. Nor does it present an image of impartial research. Obviously I'm nobody and not the one doing anything. Or am I Al Gore? You'll never know, muhahaha. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geologic_temperature_record#/media/File:All_palaeotemps.svg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geologic_temperature_record#/m... Obviously climate change is real. 50 million years ago during the dinosaurs, temperatures in the eocene were 14c or 25f warmer. In the last 20,000 years the earth has gotten 6c or 10f warmer. We switched from a too-cold climate, an ice age, to much nicer and freeing up much land. The climate obviously changed. 100% we will see the climate change more unless we proactively try to control the climate. Now we don't have a good track record on trying to control nature. The indigenous of north america regularly used forest fires: https://www.history.com/news/native-american-wildfires https://www.history.com/news/native-american-wildfires We in our wisdom banned that decades ago: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/decades-mismanagement-led-choked-forests-now-it-s-time-clear-n1243599 https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/decades-mismanagement-l... Dont even talk to the aussies on mismanaged ecosystems... they are sore. But I'm sure we'll get it right this time. Our new disinformation governance board won't allow anyone to post anything negative about it.
  - aww_dang 4y ago
    "Climate change is real", is a masterwork of sloganeering. It frames the discussion perfectly. Is anyone arguing that the climate does not change on the geological timescale? Of course not. Yet from this point the propagandists can equate "change" with "impending doom" via sleight of hand. Conveniently enough there is a solution provided. Simply accept central planning as your savior to avoid the hell-fires of climate doom. If we are going to legislate the weather or enact regulations to achieve a climatic outcome, then we should at least establish what the ideal climate is. The sloganeering breaks down from this point. They cannot demand climate stasis. It is entirely unreasonable and unprecedented. Ecosystems or mismanaged ecosystems, these are red herrings. Look at the proposed solutions. Consider that these were the end goals, independent of the provided doomsaying rationales. The goal is economic dominance and central planning. The doomsaying is merely the sales pitch. For me, this is a logical arrangement. Much more so than the deceptive sloganeering. Of course, as Al Gore, you would probably like to dismiss that as conspiratorial thinking, but I am onto you.