4 ms·

1. Fossil fuels can't just run out because they are produced continuously by dead matter decaying over time. It's in the name. 2. Carbon dioxide is good for th

1. Fossil fuels can't just run out because they are produced continuously by dead matter decaying over time. It's in the name. 2. Carbon dioxide is good for the plant life. Plants are literally "breathing" it and producing oxygen. As with everything in nature, this is balanced by the fact that animals breathe oxygen and release...you guessed it, carbon dioxide. 3. Vulcanic eruptions all over the planet release three orders of magnitude more CO2 than all of humanity combined over a period of one year. These eruptions happen in the Earth's oceans, as well, where they are more frequent as there is simply more ocean floor than there is land on the surface. So, please stop with the disinformation already. Or just reduce the carbon footprint in the most developed countries in the world and leave the developing world to go through the fossil fuel phase that those countries went through.

kubb 3y ago
1. Achilles can never catch up with the turtle because whenever Achilles would reach the turtle, the turtle is already a little bit further away.
uxp8u61q 3y ago
I knew there were climate skeptics, but this is the first time I encounter such lunacy in the wild. Let me ask you this - the US economic boom is largely attributable to slavery and WW2 decimating its rivals and forcing them to agree to quasi-vassality. Should we bring back slavery and start a new world war? So that it's "fair" for the developing countries?
- wheelerof4te 3y ago
  "the US economic boom is largely attributable to slavery and WW2 decimating its rivals and forcing them to agree to quasi-vassality. Should we bring back slavery and start a new world war? So that it's "fair" for the developing countries?" Ah, another strawman I have to argue on the internet. I did not say that, so don't put it in my mouth, please. Tell me why you think that things science already confirmed are "lunacy" to you?
  - adamlett 3y ago
    Asking you to consider an analogous situation is hardly the same as claiming you said anything you didn’t.
    - wheelerof4te 3y ago
      The US did benefit from slavery and the fact that most of Europe ended up destroyed in WWII. However, it did not use green energy to build up its huge industry. It used fossil fuels. If it did use carbon-free energy sources, I would have agreed and wouldn't be such a climate-change skeptic now.
- inglor_cz 3y ago
  Not an American, so I don't really want to engage in your culture wars, but still... your comment is very Chomsky-ite. The slavery part is questionable. While slavery made money for the slave owners, the South as a whole was poor and couldn't keep up with the North when it came to actual economic activity. That is why they lost their war of survival. Looking at other slave-owning societies of the 1800s, none can be described as particularly rich today. One of the reasons why slavery died out in the Western world was that it was becoming uneconomical in a world that was shifting from agriculture to industry. Even the Nazis often lost money on their slave-operated industries; people are just too clever not to be able to sabotage such subtle operations if they hate you enough. Slavery is really only economically efficient in sex, back-breaking work in the fields or mines, or possibly household help. "Quasi-vassality" is a Putinesque formulation. Neither Japan nor Germany are in any sense of the word American vassal states. They are kept in the American-led coalition mostly by their self-interest, because taking part in a global trade network is, for industrial powers like those two, much preferable to not doing so. And if they find any American political or military action questionable, they stay out of it, unlike actual vassals, who were usually compelled to provide manpower for their liege's wars. Neither Japan nor Germany engaged themselves in Vietnam or Iraq, for example.
  - wheelerof4te 3y ago
    "Neither Japan nor Germany are in any sense of the word American vassal states." Both states harbor huge US military bases. Bases that were established after literal military occupation and not by choice. It's safe to say that they can't truly be free and choose their own policies. By definition, they are both occupied states.
    - nec4b 3y ago
      Which they want to have out of their self interest and not because they are forced too. And no, they are not occupied by any definition. Ukraine is an example of a country which is partially occupied by a foreign force.
    - inglor_cz 3y ago
      There is something like 40 thousand American soldiers in Germany. Way, way too little to influence actual policy of a rich country with > 80 million people. I speak German and I can guarantee you that American military presence has approximately zero influence on German politics. This is not how an "occupied" country works. You know how an occupied country looks like? Like Czechoslovakia after 1968. The Soviet troops were permanently stationed there to cow our own Communists into submission to the Moscow line. Once it became clear that Gorbachev was no longer willing to actually use them for this purpose, the regime disintegrated within a few years.
alentred 3y ago
> Fossil fuels can't just run out because they are produced continuously They can if your rate of consumption is higher than the rate or production. Also this is irrelevant as the objective is to reduce their consumption. > Carbon dioxide is good for the plant life I think it is safe to say we are already well equipped with it. Also, as per you next point, natural production yields enough of CO2 to sustain the life, which is proven by the fact that this life exists in the first place. > Vulcanic eruptions all over the planet release three orders of magnitude more CO2 than all of humanity combined over a period of one year A quick fact checking yields these numbers: volcanoes produce about 0.3 billion tons of CO2 every year in average. Consumption of fossil fuels alone yields about 35 billion tons of CO2 every year [1], so about 100x more. Also, regardless, if you find yourself in a hole, stop digging. [1] https://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/which-emits-more-carbon-dioxide-volcanoes-or-human-activities https://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/which-emits...
- wheelerof4te 3y ago
  "I think it is safe to say we are already well equipped with it, and whatever our plans for its reduction are, we won't eliminate it." The CO2 current levels in the atmosphere are 0.04%. Levels in the past were well above 1%. "As a point of reference, pre-industrial CO2 levels were around 280 parts per million (ppm) and today, we stand near 420 ppm. The most distant period in time for which we have estimated CO2 levels is around the Ordovician period, 500 million years ago. At the time, atmospheric CO2 concentration was at a whopping 3000 to 9000 ppm! The average temperature wasn’t much more than 10 degrees C above today’s, and those of you who have heard of the runaway hothouse Earth scenario may wonder why it didn’t happen then. Major factors were that the Sun was cooler, and the planet’s orbital cycles were different." https://earth.org/data_visualization/a-brief-history-of-co2/ https://earth.org/data_visualization/a-brief-history-of-co2/ They somehow knew that the Sun was cooler then, so that was not a problem. Yeah, right. But now, it would be.
  - AstralStorm 3y ago
    Not to mention mammals didn't exist. And even then it caused mass extinctions of shelled waterborne organisms. So the question is "equipped for what".
kragen 3y ago
there is a curious lack of verifiable quantitative data in your comment consider the possible worlds in which you are mistaken. how would you tell whether you are in one or not because to the rest of us it looks like you are mistaken
- wheelerof4te 3y ago
  "there is a curious lack of verifiable quantitative data in your comment" Sorry, the climate-change megalomaniacs have skewed every discussion about this in the mainstream media. You will have to search for the data in the alternative sources. "because to the rest of us it looks like you are mistaken" I don't see any big changes when compared to the last 30 years, do you? What I do see is one big hysteria by the first-world countries who are imposing expensive, inefficient green energy on the rest of the world. Curiously, they are not doing anything to reduce the emissions they produce.
  - kragen 3y ago
    when i search for the data in the alternative sources it still looks like you're mistaken probably you don't have data and are just making stuff up
SonicScrub 3y ago
> 1. Fossil fuels can't just run out because they are produced continuously by dead matter decaying over time. I love this comment for being the perfect example of how something can be technically correct, while also being completely wrong on every conceivable level. Yes. Fossil fuels are derived from natural ongoing processes (some are at least, coal formation may be over forever), but at a painstakingly slow rate that it is meaningless to any point being made when people talk about "running out of fossil fuels". "Running out of fossil fuels" implicitly refers to human timescales. Not geological ones. Everyone understands this when discussing this topic. So either you are painfully ignorant on the subject of how fossil fuels are formed, or are intentionally trying to derail discussions surrounding the actual problems we face.
schindlabua 3y ago
2. Not only are we breathing out CO2, we're introducing additional carbon into the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels, upsetting the balance.
- nec4b 3y ago
  >> upsetting the balance Do we know what the right balance of CO2 is?
  - wheelerof4te 3y ago
    Of course we don't have a clue. But people will pull all kinds of crazy out of their ass to justify the climate-change hoax.
sokoloff 3y ago
Volcanic emissions amount to around 1%, not 1000x the amount of human CO2 emissions per year. https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/volcano-carbon-emissions/ https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/volcano-carbon-emissions/
- wheelerof4te 3y ago
  The article debunks the CO2 quantity from only one such emission. There are hundreds of active volcanoes on the Earth's surface and possibly thousands more in the oceans.
  - sokoloff 3y ago
    No. It uses research from a 2013 paper that estimated the total annual flux from volcanic sources worldwide. Search for “2013 review” in the article.
oezi 3y ago
Totally insane take. And point 3.) is entirely wrong: https://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/which-emits-more-carbon-dioxide-volcanoes-or-human-activities https://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/which-emits... Humans emit more than 90 times as much Co2 than all active volcanos.
- nec4b 3y ago
  Humans are burning fossil fuels for 100 years, while volcanoes have been erupting for the last 4 billions of years.

kubb 3y ago

1. Achilles can never catch up with the turtle because whenever Achilles would reach the turtle, the turtle is already a little bit further away.

uxp8u61q 3y ago

I knew there were climate skeptics, but this is the first time I encounter such lunacy in the wild. Let me ask you this - the US economic boom is largely attributable to slavery and WW2 decimating its rivals and forcing them to agree to quasi-vassality. Should we bring back slavery and start a new world war? So that it's "fair" for the developing countries?

wheelerof4te 3y ago
"the US economic boom is largely attributable to slavery and WW2 decimating its rivals and forcing them to agree to quasi-vassality. Should we bring back slavery and start a new world war? So that it's "fair" for the developing countries?" Ah, another strawman I have to argue on the internet. I did not say that, so don't put it in my mouth, please. Tell me why you think that things science already confirmed are "lunacy" to you?
- adamlett 3y ago
  Asking you to consider an analogous situation is hardly the same as claiming you said anything you didn’t.
  - wheelerof4te 3y ago
    The US did benefit from slavery and the fact that most of Europe ended up destroyed in WWII. However, it did not use green energy to build up its huge industry. It used fossil fuels. If it did use carbon-free energy sources, I would have agreed and wouldn't be such a climate-change skeptic now.
inglor_cz 3y ago
Not an American, so I don't really want to engage in your culture wars, but still... your comment is very Chomsky-ite. The slavery part is questionable. While slavery made money for the slave owners, the South as a whole was poor and couldn't keep up with the North when it came to actual economic activity. That is why they lost their war of survival. Looking at other slave-owning societies of the 1800s, none can be described as particularly rich today. One of the reasons why slavery died out in the Western world was that it was becoming uneconomical in a world that was shifting from agriculture to industry. Even the Nazis often lost money on their slave-operated industries; people are just too clever not to be able to sabotage such subtle operations if they hate you enough. Slavery is really only economically efficient in sex, back-breaking work in the fields or mines, or possibly household help. "Quasi-vassality" is a Putinesque formulation. Neither Japan nor Germany are in any sense of the word American vassal states. They are kept in the American-led coalition mostly by their self-interest, because taking part in a global trade network is, for industrial powers like those two, much preferable to not doing so. And if they find any American political or military action questionable, they stay out of it, unlike actual vassals, who were usually compelled to provide manpower for their liege's wars. Neither Japan nor Germany engaged themselves in Vietnam or Iraq, for example.
- wheelerof4te 3y ago
  "Neither Japan nor Germany are in any sense of the word American vassal states." Both states harbor huge US military bases. Bases that were established after literal military occupation and not by choice. It's safe to say that they can't truly be free and choose their own policies. By definition, they are both occupied states.
  - nec4b 3y ago
    Which they want to have out of their self interest and not because they are forced too. And no, they are not occupied by any definition. Ukraine is an example of a country which is partially occupied by a foreign force.
  - inglor_cz 3y ago
    There is something like 40 thousand American soldiers in Germany. Way, way too little to influence actual policy of a rich country with > 80 million people. I speak German and I can guarantee you that American military presence has approximately zero influence on German politics. This is not how an "occupied" country works. You know how an occupied country looks like? Like Czechoslovakia after 1968. The Soviet troops were permanently stationed there to cow our own Communists into submission to the Moscow line. Once it became clear that Gorbachev was no longer willing to actually use them for this purpose, the regime disintegrated within a few years.

alentred 3y ago

> Fossil fuels can't just run out because they are produced continuously They can if your rate of consumption is higher than the rate or production. Also this is irrelevant as the objective is to reduce their consumption. > Carbon dioxide is good for the plant life I think it is safe to say we are already well equipped with it. Also, as per you next point, natural production yields enough of CO2 to sustain the life, which is proven by the fact that this life exists in the first place. > Vulcanic eruptions all over the planet release three orders of magnitude more CO2 than all of humanity combined over a period of one year A quick fact checking yields these numbers: volcanoes produce about 0.3 billion tons of CO2 every year in average. Consumption of fossil fuels alone yields about 35 billion tons of CO2 every year [1], so about 100x more. Also, regardless, if you find yourself in a hole, stop digging. [1] https://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/which-emits-more-carbon-dioxide-volcanoes-or-human-activities https://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/which-emits...

wheelerof4te 3y ago
"I think it is safe to say we are already well equipped with it, and whatever our plans for its reduction are, we won't eliminate it." The CO2 current levels in the atmosphere are 0.04%. Levels in the past were well above 1%. "As a point of reference, pre-industrial CO2 levels were around 280 parts per million (ppm) and today, we stand near 420 ppm. The most distant period in time for which we have estimated CO2 levels is around the Ordovician period, 500 million years ago. At the time, atmospheric CO2 concentration was at a whopping 3000 to 9000 ppm! The average temperature wasn’t much more than 10 degrees C above today’s, and those of you who have heard of the runaway hothouse Earth scenario may wonder why it didn’t happen then. Major factors were that the Sun was cooler, and the planet’s orbital cycles were different." https://earth.org/data_visualization/a-brief-history-of-co2/ https://earth.org/data_visualization/a-brief-history-of-co2/ They somehow knew that the Sun was cooler then, so that was not a problem. Yeah, right. But now, it would be.
- AstralStorm 3y ago
  Not to mention mammals didn't exist. And even then it caused mass extinctions of shelled waterborne organisms. So the question is "equipped for what".

kragen 3y ago

there is a curious lack of verifiable quantitative data in your comment consider the possible worlds in which you are mistaken. how would you tell whether you are in one or not because to the rest of us it looks like you are mistaken

wheelerof4te 3y ago
"there is a curious lack of verifiable quantitative data in your comment" Sorry, the climate-change megalomaniacs have skewed every discussion about this in the mainstream media. You will have to search for the data in the alternative sources. "because to the rest of us it looks like you are mistaken" I don't see any big changes when compared to the last 30 years, do you? What I do see is one big hysteria by the first-world countries who are imposing expensive, inefficient green energy on the rest of the world. Curiously, they are not doing anything to reduce the emissions they produce.
- kragen 3y ago
  when i search for the data in the alternative sources it still looks like you're mistaken probably you don't have data and are just making stuff up

SonicScrub 3y ago

> 1. Fossil fuels can't just run out because they are produced continuously by dead matter decaying over time. I love this comment for being the perfect example of how something can be technically correct, while also being completely wrong on every conceivable level. Yes. Fossil fuels are derived from natural ongoing processes (some are at least, coal formation may be over forever), but at a painstakingly slow rate that it is meaningless to any point being made when people talk about "running out of fossil fuels". "Running out of fossil fuels" implicitly refers to human timescales. Not geological ones. Everyone understands this when discussing this topic. So either you are painfully ignorant on the subject of how fossil fuels are formed, or are intentionally trying to derail discussions surrounding the actual problems we face.

schindlabua 3y ago

2. Not only are we breathing out CO2, we're introducing additional carbon into the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels, upsetting the balance.

nec4b 3y ago
>> upsetting the balance Do we know what the right balance of CO2 is?
- wheelerof4te 3y ago
  Of course we don't have a clue. But people will pull all kinds of crazy out of their ass to justify the climate-change hoax.

sokoloff 3y ago

Volcanic emissions amount to around 1%, not 1000x the amount of human CO2 emissions per year. https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/volcano-carbon-emissions/ https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/volcano-carbon-emissions/

wheelerof4te 3y ago
The article debunks the CO2 quantity from only one such emission. There are hundreds of active volcanoes on the Earth's surface and possibly thousands more in the oceans.
- sokoloff 3y ago
  No. It uses research from a 2013 paper that estimated the total annual flux from volcanic sources worldwide. Search for “2013 review” in the article.

oezi 3y ago

Totally insane take. And point 3.) is entirely wrong: https://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/which-emits-more-carbon-dioxide-volcanoes-or-human-activities https://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/which-emits... Humans emit more than 90 times as much Co2 than all active volcanos.

nec4b 3y ago
Humans are burning fossil fuels for 100 years, while volcanoes have been erupting for the last 4 billions of years.