Re: Science vs. social media: Why climate change denial still thrives online

From	D <nospam@example.net>
Newsgroups	alt.journalism.criticism, misc.news.internet.discuss, alt.writing.scams, alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, talk.politics.guns, sac.politics
Subject	Re: Science vs. social media: Why climate change denial still thrives online
Date	2024-01-22 16:47 +0100
Organization	i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID	<b88280e4-e381-3c79-22a2-0c9de1d24395@example.net> (permalink)
References	<XnsB0FFE2843415BBX@135.181.20.170> <20240121095453.3911fc848b0cfe608e018032@127.0.0.1> <3e0aa36e-08c1-4b40-b950-e8e3732fc754@example.net> <uolr59$oe1d$22@dont-email.me>

Cross-posted to 6 groups.

Show all headers | View raw


On Mon, 22 Jan 2024, Scout wrote:

>> I do not believe in the doom and gloom climate hysterics, irrationalists 
>> and zealots. Yes, I call them zelots, hysterics and irrationalists as long 
>> as they keep calling anyone who does not agree with them "deniers". I 
>> resent them trying to imply connections with the holocaust and will not 
>> take anyone seriously who uses that term.
>> 
>> There is no proof and the majority of climate change can be explained by 
>> natural causes such as the sun, dust and other factors.
>> 
>> Of course there are no tipping points as well, and the last time the earth 
>> had 10x the CO2 in the atmosphere the entire planet was covered with plants 
>> and life existed happily on this planet.
>
> Let's put it this way.. at work you can be regularly and consistently exposed 
> to CO2 concentrations up to 5,000ppm without harm
> Atmospheric concentrations of CO2 is 421ppm.
>
> I would simply not that for most of the Roman empire is was 2C hotter than it 
> is today.
>
> I suppose all their heavy industry and oil usage was to blame?
>
> We have no real idea of what governs climate change.
>
> For example. most assume that climate change is driven purely by solar and 
> atmospheric causes.. but what if there were another reason?
> A reason that until recently we hadn't even considered?
> Specifically, increased heat transfer from the core to the surface to the 
> atmosphere.
> Nonsense you say?
> Except we have some interesting data from instruments produced in just the 
> last few years with the precision necessary.
>
> The Earth's spin is ACCELERATING.
>
> Now to accelerate an object there are basically two ways to do so.
> Apply an external force.. or in a spinning object move mass closer to the 
> axis of rotation.
>
> Now, given no external force we know of, it would seem to suggest a shift in 
> the distribution of the mass of the earth.
> We know the Earth has a molten iron core, and we further know it is broken up 
> into at least 2 different regions.
> The denser cooler outer core and the hotter less dense inner core.
> Let's suppose some of the out core sinks closer to the center.. that would 
> speed up planetary rotation.
> But that material is going to displace some of the hotter inner core towards 
> the surface, which would over time increase the rate of heat transfer to the 
> surface.
> It would take a very small increase in ground temperature to impact global 
> temperatures over a long period of time. Possibly even causing Cooler periods 
> as thermal disruptions occur.
> After all, it's often been a mystery why certain climate changes have 
> occurred without solar or volcanic action.. perhaps we now have a clue.
> And it's really nothing we can control in the least.

Amen!

And its probably many factors, some known, some unknown who each,
independently of each other influences this.

As you say, there have been many swings, big parts of northern europe
where under 3 km of ice and grapse being grown in southern sweden
without any industry at all, yet, no one talks about this.

Thread

csiph-web