there are parts of global warming that are legit... just not the doomsday cult climate apocalypse nonsense.
on top of that, elon's changes to the way we think about cars and power will change the world regardless of climate cult bullshit.
if he just came out and called them fucking retarded, they wouldn't covet what he's building. instead, he's building the iphone of cars, and they will line up for mils to suck his cock just to ride in one.
dumping greenhouse gas and burning fossil fuels raises temperatures... just not even remotely to the levels they're talking.
whenever they cite studies that show increases in CO2 cause increase in temperatures, they're always giving obnoxious examples... stuff like 500,000+ PPM increases of CO2. that's so much CO2 that all life on earth would have gone extinct, not from CO2, but because it'd take us so many thousands of years to get there that we'd long have switched to fission or subspace power.
in contrast, the evidence they "have" (and i say "have" in quotes because it's so ridiculously manipulated it's just outright fake) is that the CO2 has risen a couple hundred PPM in the last thousand years.
when you ask for controlled evidence of the temp rise caused by such a small amount of CO2, they go into instant screech mode.
when you bring up the fact that it's not raw data and has undergone numerous revisions, they go into instant screech mode.
when you ask for the raw temp or CO2 data, they go into screech mode.
why is the raw data for later years no longer available, only the edited data?
why did the earlier data have to have so many major revisions? why do the revisions keep raising the temperature over time from revision to revision?
what's the temp rise caused by a controlled increase of a fixed volume system that increases 300 PPM CO2 and is under sunlight?
now what's the same temp rise for a gaseous but gravitational ball in space? because we know the atmosphere is not fixed volume. it expands and contracts in observance of fluid dynamics (including ideal gas law and boyle's law) acted upon by gravity.
when you bring this up, they will either have no idea what you're talking about, proving they only regurgitate low IQ talking points, or they will try to pass off UNCONTROLLED data as controlled data, or they will make utterly ridiculous claims like that the ideal gas law doesn't apply to atmospheric gases... which is utterly absurd, like saying kinetic energy doesn't apply when something has potential energy.
there are parts of global warming that are legit... just not the doomsday cult climate apocalypse nonsense.
on top of that, elon's changes to the way we think about cars and power will change the world regardless of climate cult bullshit.
if he just came out and called them fucking retarded, they wouldn't covet what he's building. instead, he's building the iphone of cars, and they will line up for mils to suck his cock just to ride in one.
So what is legit about it?
dumping greenhouse gas and burning fossil fuels raises temperatures... just not even remotely to the levels they're talking.
whenever they cite studies that show increases in CO2 cause increase in temperatures, they're always giving obnoxious examples... stuff like 500,000+ PPM increases of CO2. that's so much CO2 that all life on earth would have gone extinct, not from CO2, but because it'd take us so many thousands of years to get there that we'd long have switched to fission or subspace power.
in contrast, the evidence they "have" (and i say "have" in quotes because it's so ridiculously manipulated it's just outright fake) is that the CO2 has risen a couple hundred PPM in the last thousand years.
when you ask for controlled evidence of the temp rise caused by such a small amount of CO2, they go into instant screech mode.
when you bring up the fact that it's not raw data and has undergone numerous revisions, they go into instant screech mode.
when you ask for the raw temp or CO2 data, they go into screech mode.
that's not science. that's cult zealotry.
I'm in an argument with my sister-in-law about climate change. She sent me this website: https://climate.nasa.gov/
How can I prove it's wrong?
It's tricky because of all the fucked up government institutions, NASA is actually the one I trust the most.
ask her:
when you bring this up, they will either have no idea what you're talking about, proving they only regurgitate low IQ talking points, or they will try to pass off UNCONTROLLED data as controlled data, or they will make utterly ridiculous claims like that the ideal gas law doesn't apply to atmospheric gases... which is utterly absurd, like saying kinetic energy doesn't apply when something has potential energy.
Wise pede