“It’s the year 2022 and I am the last of the normies who survive on Rintrah’s wordpress blog. He makes me answer all sorts of difficult questions about climate change (they used to call it global warming before Bill Gates told them to change the name of the hoax!!!), before I can post my insights on his blog. I’m pretty sure all of his questions are fake news, already fact-checked by real American patriots, who eat their quarter pounder with a side-dish of brown coal. And yet, something begins to chew at me. I can’t help but wonder… is the American way of life unsustainable?”
I’ve figured out the perfect solution to my problem with bad comments. You’re going to do a little homework from now on! If you really can’t answer a question, just refresh until you get another question. I will keep adding more and more questions as time goes on, until trying to post a comment on my blog will be as psychologically tormenting for normies as 24 hours of sobriety are for yours sincerely.
damn man, its like torba, utsav and dorsey rolled into one. why cant you be more like tom? i feel targeted
You don’t understand, once we’ve conquered and dominated nature there will be no nature as we know it – just humanity🍆. WE will be nature. In complete control of everything. Then we can blast our awesome seed into space to conquer other planets until humanity swallows the universe.
Trolololol
Have fun with the space radiation
Musk will develop some kind of radiation shield for the spunk
Challenge accepted.
I don’t really have a comment, I just wanted to see if I could guess the question
arhennius? Truly grasping at straws, I’m sure the bible had something to say about it, or maybe the mahabarata?
8 THOUSAND PPM
8000ppm.
EIGHT THOUSAND PPM
20x Higher than now
20000% higher than now
Thata the natural peaks of CO2 in the atmosphere in geological history
We are at 400.
Plants cannot even grow properly at 400, raise it higher and the world gets much greener
HOW THE FUCK can you pretend there is an issue with it getting to, say 600ppm, ie 7.5% of NATURAL historical maximums, and pretend humans have anything to do with it?
Also, please do your OWN homework, and notice that there is a law of diminishing returns when you add more and more CO2 to the atmosphere, just as there would be adding ever more layers of glass to a greenhouse, and those diminishing returns kick in in the LOW 10s of ppm, by 300-400 additional CO2 does sweet fuck all
Meanwhile, ALL the really good times in human history were warmer than now, using non corrupted data, eg the renaissance and golden ages, and all the really bad times were colder, ie dark ages, why the FUCK would we want to go back to them?
Global warming cultists sure are are annoying fuckers, but you unquestionably have the intelligence to see through it, go do some actual research, stop repeating horseshit.
>Thata the natural peaks of CO2 in the atmosphere in geological history
Yeah solar luminosity was lower back then.
>Also, please do your OWN homework, and notice that there is a law of diminishing returns when you add more and more CO2 to the atmosphere, just as there would be adding ever more layers of glass to a greenhouse, and those diminishing returns kick in in the LOW 10s of ppm, by 300-400 additional CO2 does sweet fuck all
Yeah that’s the “saturation argument”, the idea that the greenhouse effect is already saturated. And yet we have the satellite evidence showing there’s still a decline in outgoing radiation at the frequencies corresponding to methane and CO2 between 1970 and 1996.
This argument doesn’t hold up. Nor do the other ones.
> ALL the really good times in human history were warmer than now, using non corrupted data, eg the renaissance and golden ages
Those periods were not warmer than the Earth is now.
yes they were (warmer than now), at least, that’s what the evidence suggests, things like warmer climate plant based agriculture growing places that are too cold for it now, arctic ice at same or lower coverage than now etc, of course we didn’t have global satelite monitoring and an industry of lying shills to fake higher temps back then so we have to use proxies like this, and the ice core data showing same…
Go watch the video, then dispute the sources, instead of just throwing out empty words.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DFbUVBYIPlI
“solar luminosity was lower”
what part of *we are still in an ice age* did you not grasp? We are at some of the lowest CO2 levels in half a billion years, other than the last most recent geological *eye blink* where it was so *unprecedentedly low* plants are stunted and all the megafauna died (probably other causes as well of course), and in a COOL period, geologically speaking (sure it can get way way colder, but it gets way hotter too, and is by most accounts a lush paradise at those times), so whatever balance of solar radiation and other absorbtion/reflection etc factors were and are in effect, we are NOT in any “unprecedented warming”, nor are we at any sort of “unprecedented CO2 levels”, unless you mean *low*, as for the vast majority of the past half a billion years, they have been much higher.
“satellite evidence” lets assume for a second that the many different satelites and 3 decades of developing tech used to measure such things were somehow calibrated accurately by (proven biased and heavily corrupted) scientists (rofl), why the fuck would it matter, over a time period that means SWEET FUCK ALL geologically, and how can you know it is anything out of the ordinary, when we have no data for say, how methane levels affected things back when literally billions of bison roamed the plains of america, for instance. Its farting in the wind, meaninglessly trying to prove your initial baseless aassumption instead of starting at the most logical place: Is temperature or CO2 doing anything abnormal over relevant timeframes? (nope and nope)
GO watch the youtube link I posted, its only a few minutes long, and DESTROYS the ENTIRE hypothesis, without even needing to expose the cherry picked, secretly modified data behind the purported temp rise, because it shows RELEVANT timescales where even that bogus temp rise is so dwarfed it CANNOT BE SEEN.
here, I’ll link it again. Stop being a Normie and *watch it*
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DFbUVBYIPlI
Any ACTUAL scientist would look up this data and CO2 data over geological timeframes, as their VERY FIRST STEP to evaluating the proposed (preposterous) hypothesis, and immediately laugh their ass off at the absurdity of the “unprecedented” claims, since we are at such low temps and CO2 levels, and the natural noise (variation) is so utterly huge that it totally swamps any supposed “man made warming” signal.
If the whole Earth were warmer than it is today a few hundred years ago for any extended period of time, you would see the evidence:
-Higher sea levels that declined again.
-Evidence of dead coral reefs that didn’t survive the warming (as they’re already dying now).
-Glaciers that were entirely gone but showed up again in more recent decades (and yet, painting reveal the opposite).
-Some evidence of melting permafrost
-Evidence of people suffering tropical diseases in places where they later died out.
-You’d find remnants of vegetation, in places where you wouldn’t expect this type of vegetation.
It’s not something you could cover up by manipulating some ice core data.
I don’t get how people can believe something like this.
>“solar luminosity was lower”
what part of *we are still in an ice age* did you not grasp? We are at some of the lowest CO2 levels in half a billion years, other than the last most recent geological *eye blink* where it was so *unprecedentedly low* plants are stunted and all the megafauna died (probably other causes as well of course), and in a COOL period, geologically speaking (sure it can get way way colder, but it gets way hotter too, and is by most accounts a lush paradise at those times), so whatever balance of solar radiation and other absorbtion/reflection etc factors were and are in effect, we are NOT in any “unprecedented warming”, nor are we at any sort of “unprecedented CO2 levels”, unless you mean *low*, as for the vast majority of the past half a billion years, they have been much higher.
Dear lord you don’t even get the point I’m making to you: You were pretending that our planet could perfectly cope with 8000ppm of CO2, when I’m pointing out to you that CO2 levels today inevitably have to be lower for life to cope because the sun has gotten that much brighter compared to the period hundreds of millions of years ago when we had such CO2 levels.
>3 decades of developing tech used to measure such things were somehow calibrated accurately by (proven biased and heavily corrupted) scientists (rofl)
1. You make a claim.
2. I show you the evidence that it’s wrong.
3. You come up with some scenario where the world’s scientists are just faking satellite evidence.
Please tell me how debating this with you is any more productive than debating flat earth theory with a flat earther who thinks we’re being prohibited by the world’s governments from seeing the edges of the Earth.
You are using your own false conclusions to prove the baseless assumptions that led to your original false conclusions. Truly masterfully inane
Sea levels were lower 10kya. then they rose 100m, fairly quickly, then they rose fairly steadily *ever since*, with NO out of the usual increase in modern times.
Given that the BASIS for your claim is a nonexistant fake modern increase out of the ordinary, this point of yours makes no sense. It was warmer in recent centuries/millenia and sea levels have nothing much to do with it unless it goes full on glacial ice age.
_dead coral reefs:
AGAIN, coral reefs died from runoff, not heat, and recovered almost 100% in only a few years, and while you buy the globalist lie of heat and CO2 causing it, reefs further north in warmer waters, sometimes literally over CO2 bubbling vents, thrive, and for some reason the coral near farmland/human runoff die while those further out survive…Basically, yet again, you use your false assumption (global warming is happeneing and it is causing bleaching) to claim that if it had happened before, we’d have had bleaching then…despite the fact that the bleaching that just occured healed itself in only a few years, so how the fuck would we know if it had done so 1000 years ago?
Glaciers: yup, there are records of glaciers retreating and encroaching before, just because you dont know about them because they predate satelites and GW hoaxers doesnt mean they dont exist
Melting permafrost: assuming, yet again, the fake modern claims are true and somehow missing that the melting ice that was the end of the world turned out to be local geothermal related effect, just like the “island getting covered by rising oceans” was actually sinking due to a massive ww2 airforce runway messing up most of the islands watertable, a fact that any actual scientist would have grasped straight away, due to the *nearby islands without runways that werent sinking*, but clueless GW cultists somehow failed to notice
Remnants of vegetation
There was literally recorded agricultural industries, eg vinyards, during warm medieval periods, in places where vines no longer grow…
“Dear lord you don’t even get the point I’m making to you”
I got it, it was just too fucking inane of a red herring to debunk.
There IS NO MODERN UNPRECEDENTED WARMING, ie core data, and direct evidence, shows much warmer and much colder times and huge swings are the NORMAL BEHAVIOUR OF PLANET EARTH, not some dire consequence of the air we breathe out and cows farting. Your ENTIRE premise is based on hand waiving primary school level science conjecture, cherry picking and context dropping, and for completely unscientific and deceitful reasons, only looking at 100 years of modified, hacked data instead of the raw data from thousands or millions of years that show the exact opposite.
Stop throwing out the fake evidence of your fake modern warming as if the fake claims in the present should also be happening in the past, and go actually look at the video, explain to me why a purported modern temperature rise NOT VISIBLE ON THE GRAPH AT SCIENTIFICALLY APPROPRIATE TIME FRAME SCALES should scare me.
period hundreds of millions of years ago when we had such CO2 levels.
wrong again.
CO2 has been falling for hundreds of millions of years, meaning it was higher for almost the entirety of those hundreds of millions of years, and your claimed luminosity rise makes no fucking difference since we are STILL IN AN ICE AGE so whatever amount it has increased, IF IT HAS, has not managed to even raise us out of an ice age.
You really don’t get it.
It’s like if you said the rooms too hot, must be the new curtains, and I said it was hotter before they were installed, and actually there used to be thicker curtains, and you ignored that your initial claims were entirely false and instead “countered” with “yeah well the lightbulb is apparently brighter now (with no numbers given whatsoever for how much brighter vs the entire rest of time where co2 was higher, even fairly recently, geologically speaking) so…something something…profit…non sequiter…assumed conclusion used as evidence…ignoring that it *used to be warmer and the curtains used to be thicker, purported unspecified brighter light or not
It doesnt matter if the sun has got slightly warmer over the time of the earths existance or not.
CO2 has been WAY higher, temperatures have been WAY higher, and CO2 is at almost the lowest ever levels known, after falling for the past hundreds of millions of years, meaning all the claims of unprecedented this and that are just horseshit, other than the one claim you wont make, which would be somewhat true, that CO2 has been and still is at fairly unprecedented (during the existance of complex life) plant stuntingly LOW levels.
*2000%
By the way, I literally studied both chemistry, scientific instrumentation, and comp sci, hons in physics simulation (ie I know just how bullshit the climate change simulations are) at Uni and my *Environmental Chemistry Professor* is the one who first clued me in to it all being a giant fucking hoax, so instead of assuming you know MORE than those who see through it, perhaps actually ask some questions
The highest CO2 concentration I can find going back in time is ~4500 ppm in the Silurian period. When was it as high as 20000 ppm?
Also, even at 4500 ppm, the most complex land creatures were insects.
Perhaps insects call the Silurian period their “Renaissance” or “Golden Age”?300
I feel like the more you try to push comment filters as a means of narrative preservation disguised as quality control, the more my personal troll instincts want to do all the work of beating the filter just to post one line shitposts. I’m actively fighting not to do that, but i recognize the instinct and warning you that certainly i can’t be alone in feeling it, and the others will have less self control than me.
This is why I still repeat my recommendation of r9k unique post filter, plus a randomized question of either precalculus tier, or an American LSAT logic puzzle problem.
This would raise the standard without also putting up an implicit ideological compliance filter that naturally invites trolling.
Yes of course if you feel like trolling you can troll.
And when your only purpose for commenting is to piss me off then I’m eventually just going to hand out IP bans.
And if that doesn’t work and I grow tired enough of people showing up to troll I might just shut the whole comment section down, or stop posting altogether.
There are about ninety million anonymous right wing dudes out there with their own blog where you can comment.
I’m essentially one of a handful who feel like pointing out that changing the atmosphere by treating it as a giant waste dump is a bad idea.
And yet, I’m the one accused of putting up an ideological compliance filter, for growing tired of all the dudes showing up and regurgitating the tired old talking points:
-WHAT ABOUT VOLCANOES!??!
-WHAT ABOUT THE WEATHER STATIONS?!?!?!
-CO2 IS ACTUALLY PLANT FOOD!!!
-WHY DON’T WE JUST PLANT SOME TREES?!? SURELY THAT’S BETTER THAN SHUTTING DOWN THE ECONOMY?!?!
I’ve seen these arguments a thousand times, I spent my teenage years believing them until I figured out they’re not true.
But rather than doing some basic research to find out that your tired old talking points are already dead in the grave, the lot of you feel like spreading the ostrich gospel of sticking your head in the sand.
I know there are karmic repercussions for disrespecting nature. It’s going to backfire dramatically.
But in the meantime, I’d like to avoid being bothered by this stupidity.
Strangely, my last comment didn’t post. I wonder if it was too long. Let’s try again with it broken in sections:
——
(1/3)
Well that’s just it, even though I personally am indifferent about climate change for reasons I’ve explained in the past, that doesn’t mean I automatically endorse common american denial theories, in fact I generally agree with your description of the problem. I’ve explained my position several times, and it has a 90% overlap with yours.
I’m also certainly not here to troll, as I explained.
More important than position on climate change here, is your particular psychology at play. I don’t think what you’ve got going on is particularly good for you, so I’m going to try to point it out for your self reflection.
I’m going to expend a bit of effort at this, so I do hope you hear it out. I really do mean well with this.
(2/3)
Have you ever noticed that people often say they love a given subreddit, because it’s a “great community?” Have you ever responded by asking them to name even one username who posts there? They cannot, all of the users and content have blended in their minds into a vague “The Community.” This is psychologically easier than separately considering the hundreds of accounts that pass in front of their eyes, usually only once ever.
Instead of actually attributing feelings and information to specific user accounts, their mind simplifies the process by attributing it to “The Community.”
Now let’s say you are very pro X, whereas some social media feed somewhere is quite anti X. In this particular case, “The Community” is awful. “The Community” is a being hand crafted to enrage you, believing every anti X notion, all for the stupidest reasons, ESPECIALLY the self contradictory and mutually incompatible ones.
Now let us say you’re in a totally different corner of the internet, and a familiar anti-X sentiment is posted. Your instincts say, “Surely The Community must be behind this!” and so your hatred against The Community grows stronger.
It’s as if The Community is a demon stalking you all across the internet, finding ways to piss you off with newer and more creative anti-Xism.
The problem is, of course, that The Community is imaginary, he’s a golem created in our minds to attribute everything we hate towards, as a way to help us make sense of a digital world with vastly more people in it than creatures such as us were ever intended to be able to meaningfully keep track of.
(3/3)
Now, to the present.
When I failed to express sufficient pro-X sentiment in my comment, despite actually being fairly pro X, you got mad at a half dozen points, and a whole pattern of thinking, that I never asserted or subscribed to. You weren’t seeing me, Fucko the Clown, but rather processing it as yet another anti-X trolljob by The Community. I’m pretty much certain of this, because most of what you expressed does not describe me in the slightest. I’m sure it describes The Community perfectly, but I’m not The Community, I’m just Fucko.
I am going to make the educated inference that you have been scrolling a lot of internet discussions about X lately.
I’m also going to infer that every anti-X comment in the last 3 months stood out to you like a neon light, and that you remembered all of them, and attributed them to The Community, who you now feel stalks you even in your own blog comments.
I’m going to infer that you believe setting up enough quiz questions with pro-X answers, will keep The Community out of your blog. That pretty much appears to be your strategy here.
I’m going to tell you bluntly that it will not work, because The Community is not in your comment section, he’s in your mind. You defeat him not by walling out your commenters, but by walling out whatever websites you’ve scrolled to give birth to him in the first place.
Radagast is probably his own worst enemy. You can watch self-sabotage live and in action wherever he is or was. Maybe he thinks that he doesn’t deserve the gifts he was given.
As gifts I would list the following:
– ability to write well and think clearly
– creativity
– some form of intriguing charisma
With this he could become a cult leader but certainly generate enough to advance his causes.
Perhaps a cure for him would be to listen to these self-help books 24/7 for some time to unwind his potential. Most males only get successful after 40 anyway.
I’m a normie yuppie software developer, been reading since 2013. You’ll never get rid of me <3
Good evening. This is just a comment of appreciation.
Your policy won’t work if people who don’t accept the CAGW narrative are actually smarter than people who don’t.