Anonymous at Sat, 26 Oct 2024 03:20:36 UTC No. 16450006

>>16450004
do you think it's easy to measure the carbon intake of every single plant on earth?

Anonymous at Sat, 26 Oct 2024 04:25:13 UTC No. 16450055

>>16450004
it's a pretty meaningless figure. it doesn't change the basic reality that more plants = good. nobody was using nonsense carbon absorption numbers to plant their trees.

Anonymous at Sat, 26 Oct 2024 04:47:32 UTC No. 16450061

>>16450055
stfu libtard, plants are bad fuck you

Anonymous at Sat, 26 Oct 2024 05:03:58 UTC No. 16450066

>>16450004
Because it's a largely meaningless number, climate models don't need to track plant consumption because they have access to the raw readings from the air which is not only more accurate than any estimate based on plants but also more useful because co2 matters in air not in plants. Any number you come up for plants that disagrees with the figures in the air is just wrong.

Anonymous at Sat, 26 Oct 2024 15:51:43 UTC No. 16450827

Too bad for climate crazies that CO2 has basically no affect on global climate. Ocean currents, orogenies and solar activity explain nearly all of it. The rest is mostly explained by volcanic activity.

Anonymous at Sat, 26 Oct 2024 19:23:03 UTC No. 16451109

>>16450066
They don't, for example, ALTER raw data do they? You know, so it better fits their claimed crisis that keeps them all employed?

Anonymous at Sat, 26 Oct 2024 20:36:25 UTC No. 16451177

>>16451109
what would they do for a living if they had to stop pretending global warming was going to kill up all in 'two weeks'?

Anonymous at Sat, 26 Oct 2024 20:39:19 UTC No. 16451181

>>16450066
if output and input is not tracked then how can you blame humans?

Anonymous at Sat, 26 Oct 2024 21:05:39 UTC No. 16451231

>>16450006
It's important if you claim to understand the details of the carbon cycle well enough to prescribe legal restrictions on human activity.

Anonymous at Sat, 26 Oct 2024 21:58:06 UTC No. 16451287

>>16451109
>muh alterations
that thread fucking died after someone posted a link to a skeptic website analyzing the adjustments and concluding that, well, the adjustments are needed to account for things like the urban heat island effect and afternoon vs morning observation times for different observatories. Stop posting shit bait here, it's smashed to death like whatever's inside your skull

>>16451231
A good majority of (not braindead) environmentalists are against stupid carbon legislations, they are nothing more than greenwashing that corpos will get away with while the average person suffers. There is fucking nothing good other than virtue signalling in the "net zero by 2050" plans, the people running it will be dead and ashes by 2050, and at this point it's basically either that all of climate science is wrong and we're fine (unlikely) or that apocalypse is near.

I mean, with how stupid world leaders are we'll have killed 99% of humanity in a meaningless war long before the Blue Ocean Event or 1.5 degrees C average temperature "tipping points" or whatever.

Anonymous at Sat, 26 Oct 2024 22:58:15 UTC No. 16451352

>>16451287
>muh politics
>muh world leaders
>muh glaring narcissistic fantasy life
could you please go to /pol/, you're clearly not on this board to discuss science or math

Anonymous at Sat, 26 Oct 2024 23:25:40 UTC No. 16451376

>>16451287
Really? All I remember is a climate-cult member like you crying and pissing their pants because they realized their entire belief system is a fraud as shown by hard data.
Also they realized they will never be a real woman.

Anonymous at Sat, 26 Oct 2024 23:31:06 UTC No. 16451382

>>16451287
You're probably too uneducated and statistically ignorant to understand this, but when 98% of the supposed CO2 effect on temperature comes from the data alterations rather than the raw number, as was clearly shown, it is impossible for the anthropogenic hypothesis to be true.
The only remaining explanation is that a bunch of environut pseudo-scientists are committing fraud to retain their jobs.
You've probably never pulled your head out and noticed this, but the "Big Oil" people get paid whether or not your cult beliefs are true because everyone, even your "experts" still drive, fly, and eat. Only the "experts" have a real profit motive here.

Anonymous at Sun, 27 Oct 2024 06:06:19 UTC No. 16451793

>>16451181
Human influence is proven by isotope analysis, again far more accurate and simpler to measure.

Anonymous at Sun, 27 Oct 2024 17:16:10 UTC No. 16452425

>>16451793
wrong