Follow

@arteteco I am not "judging" but making a logical "observation", learn to discern between the two, @augustus I can and will provide you with totally independent non NASA/Energy (non George Soros NGO funded) data - there is a lot out there trust me. Augustus casting politics and even this reasonable debate to one side, purely on a *moral basis*, climate change or otherwise, do you not agree and believe that our children do not Deserve the toxic air they breathe, the leaded water they drink which is all destroying our earth and us - does your conscience not believe in using clean responsible sustainable materials and renewable organic (non chemical/GMO products) ? I ask you all this as these are inter-related social movements which will lead to a greener and cleaner planet and people 👍

@ozer @arteteco i agree with you about all those things. i am actually very against industrialism and the catastrophic effects it has on the ecosystem in general, but these things are not limited to potential atmospheric warming. i just think you can make a case for incinerating hydrocarbons en masse being a pretty bad idea without needing to invent stories like global warming 

@augustus
Augustus I enjoy our informed "discussions" (not even "debates") because your tone is mature and measured and yes incineration is bad because it catalyzes radioactivity. Ok here is non NASA/Energy Dept/non George Soros//NOAA proof of rising temperatures - the graph is based on the comparison of atmospheric samples contained in ice cores and contemporary direct measurements, provides ample evidence that atmospheric CO2 has increased since the Industrial Revolution how can you refute this Arteco and Augustus ? It is a study conducted by the totally Independent Vostok Institute of Ice core Data by the climatologist J.R. Petit et al.,

@ozer thanks. yes, i do think atmospheric CO2 has increased (to a whopping 0.04% of the atmosphere!!!!) whether that a) necessarily translates to an increase in warming or b) whether that warming is as a result of said CO2 and not due to other factors like solar radiation or milankovitch cycles remains to be seen.
i am also not an expert in atmospheric chemistry which is why my argument is mostly based around trying to convince the other person that the government is a dirty liar and not to be trusted, this way i don't need to get stuck into the guts and weeds of greenhouse mechanisms and so on. i will also say that i've basically said my piece here and i appreciate your receptive and respectful attitude towards difference of opinion, but i'm not interested in proselyting for my overly paranoid minority opinion on this topic anymore because i'm really tired of it, but thanks for listening

@augustus @arteteco Augustus no where did you get the 0.04% figure from ? I dispute it. The planet's average surface temperature has risen about by 1.62 degrees Fahrenheit (0.9 degrees Celsius) since the late 19th century (Source: National Research Council (NRC), Surface Temperature Reconstructions For the Last 2,000 Years. National Academy Press) we are suddenly witnessing huge drastic weather fluctuations how else do you explain the extreme weather conditions eg fires in Greece California the scorching summer in London this year ? Sheer coincidence ? I do not think so. Let us look beyond our ideological spectacles and answer to the clear signals nature is sending us ? These are changes driven indisputably by industrialization, pollution, gases, chemical spills into our oceans unhealthy amounts of carbon dioxide these are all reversible Augustus these are all *human-made emissions* into the atmosphere.

@ozer @arteteco from here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Earth i am just quoting the percentage that CO2 makes up in the atmosphere. i don't believe weather is any more extreme now than in the past, i think this is just confirmation bias and people looking for datapoints to fit the pattern they have in their head. also you say let us take off ideology, and then you go directly into an ideological mechanism that random weather patterns must be the result of nature punishing us for industrialism. what if they're not? what if they're just random weather occurrences and you are carving patterns from this chaos because of the patterns in your mind. i'm sorry but i can't see that narrative as anything other than ideological. ecological destruction is bad, but not every storm is the result of a marginal increase in CO2. they may not even be realted.

@ozer
Me being a climate change denier by the way I phrased a question is a logical observation how? I have the feeling you don't take the effort to read and understand what people say. It's a waste of time, frankly

@augustus

Sign in to participate in the conversation
Qoto Mastodon

QOTO: Question Others to Teach Ourselves
An inclusive, Academic Freedom, instance
All cultures welcome.
Hate speech and harassment strictly forbidden.