XPost: alt.home.repair, alt.global-warming, can.politics   
   XPost: aus.politics, nz.politics   
   From: dtl@invalid.net   
      
   Cindy Hamilton wrote:   
   > On 2024-11-20, Alexandria Ocasio-Mayorkis  wrote:   
   >> Cindy Hamilton wrote:   
   >>> On 2024-11-19, Greta Thongturd    
   wrote:   
   >>>> On OANN's Weekly Briefing this weekend, I saw a video clip of President   
   >>>> Trump and Joey Diapers having a chit-chat in front of a fireplace at the   
   >>>> White House.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> The fireplace had a roaring 75k BTU gas log fire going.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> Why do the democrat climate change nazis ban America's natural gas   
   >>>> stoves yet have a natural gas fireplace at the White House?   
   >>>   
   >>> They aren't banned.  You can go right down to Home Depot and   
   >>> buy one for your hovel.   
   >>>   
   >>   
   >> Yabbut the libturds tell us fireplaces cause climate change.   
   >   
   > "Yabbut" ?  Is that what passes for rhetoric in your bubble?   
   >   
   https://thehighwire.com/editorial/new-peer-reviewed-study-co2-ha   
   -zero-impact-on-climate-change/   
      
   Share on Facebook   
   Share on X   
   Share on Parler   
   Share on Gab   
   Share on Telegram   
   Share on Reddit   
   Share on WhatsApp   
   Popular   
   Study Shows Ketogenic Diet Shrinks Pancreatic Tumors   
   Knowledge is Power: The Corruption Behind Seed Oils   
   Funded by BARDA, Japan Approves Next-Generation Self-Amplifying mRNA Jabs   
   A powerful peer-reviewed scientific study delivers substantial evidence   
   that carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions in the atmosphere have zero impact   
   on the Earth’s global temperatures. The study concludes that even though   
   most publications attempt to depict a catastrophic future for our planet   
   due to an increase in CO2, there is serious doubt that this is, in fact,   
   the case. Instead, the study authors deduced that their research   
   unequivocally means that the officially presented narrative that human   
   activity is causing a detrimental CO2 increase on Earth’s climate is   
   merely a hypothesis rather than a substantiated reality.   
      
   The study, published in Science Direct in March 2024, confirms that the   
   warming effect of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is naturally limited,   
   with the limit having been reached decades ago. The study also confirms   
   what climatologist Dr. Judith Curry has stated, which is that the   
   “manufactured consensus of scientists at the request of policymakers”   
   regarding climate change is all a ruse to push an agenda that has   
   nothing to do with climate change. She insists that “Earth has survived   
   far bigger insults that what human beings are doing.”   
      
   In a 2022 interview, Curry remarked that the basic facts of the climate   
   situation are clear—global temperatures have been warming, humans emit   
   CO2 into the atmosphere, and CO2 has an infrared emission spectra that,   
   overall, acts to warm the planet. However, after that, there is much   
   disagreement over the most consequential issues propagated to fuel the   
   climate change narrative, such as how much of the warming has been   
   caused by humans and how significant is human-caused warming relative to   
   solar-variability, ocean circulation patterns, and so on?   
      
   Why are politically active scientists exaggerating the truth for   
   political objectives? Many are now certain that, like the COVID-19   
   pandemic, the massive climate change scheme is about greed, power, and   
   control. Curry, Professor Emeritus and former chair of the School of   
   Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology,   
   has become known as an outspoken scientist who doubts the “scientific   
   consensus” on climate change. Unsurprisingly, akin to the doctors who   
   dared speak up about the deadly mRNA COVID-19 shots, Curry was   
   “academically, pretty much finished off” and “essentially unhirable.”   
   But that has not stopped her from speaking up. When asked how far from   
   reality the picture of doom and gloom painted by those pushing the   
   climate agenda really is, Curry stated:   
      
   “It’s very far from gloom and doom. People are being sued left and right   
   over bad weather. Governments, oil companies, and everything because   
   they’re not doing enough.   
      
   People who think that they can control the climate… It’s just a pipe   
   dream. Even if we went to net zero, we would barely notice. It would be   
   hard to detect any change in the climate. The climate is going to do   
   what the climate’s going to do. And there’s a lot of inertia in the system.   
      
   If the carbon dioxide that we’ve put in is as important, as bad as some   
   people seem to think, those effects are going to be with us for a very,   
   very long time. And stopping now isn’t going to change that trajectory   
   very much.   
      
   So, we must look forward and try to understand what’s happened. But   
   thinking that we’re going to control the climate by going to net zero   
   very quickly is not good.”   
      
   Curry remarked that even when you look more recently at the weather in   
   the United States, for example, it was much worse in the 1930s by any   
   measure than it is now. When you look at the data, she insists that   
   period was inundated with forest fires, droughts, heat waves, and   
   hurricanes. It makes no sense to rapidly revamp our entire energy   
   infrastructure to rely on wind turbines and solar energy, which require   
   a massive land and water footprint.   
      
   According to Curry, the most significant danger is if “we do really   
   stupid stuff like destroy our energy infrastructure before we have   
   something better to replace it with.” She believes the biggest climate   
   risk right now is a so-called transition risk, the risk of rapidly   
   getting rid of fossil fuels. Dr. Curry is right. Even if society   
   transitions to all wind and solar, massive amounts of fossil fuels will   
   be needed to do all the mining, establish the supply chains, transport,   
   and everything else. So, in the near term, even if the plan is to use   
   all renewable wind and solar energy, we will need large amounts of   
   fossil fuels to get there. “People just repeat these mantras without any   
   thought,” Curry said, adding, “It’s not a good place.”   
      
   And now, following Dr. Curry’s sound advice and insight, we have the   
   Science Direct study reaffirming the madness bestowed upon humanity by a   
   despicable cohort of greedy souls. Conducted by researchers from the   
   Institute of Optoelectronics, Military University of Technology in   
   Warsaw, Poland, the study authors found that even if we dug up all the   
   world’s coal, extracted all the world’s oil, and burned it in one giant   
   pyre, the CO2 emissions from that endeavor would not heat up planet   
   Earth. Indeed, this is because carbon dioxide does not cause the Earth   
   to warm up indefinitely.   
      
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-DOS v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)