XPost: rec.food.cooking, alt.global-warming   
   From: ft.tryon@park.invalid   
      
   Cindy Hamilton wrote:   
   > As if universities are the entire world.   
      
   where do their students/leaders migrate off to?   
      
   > As we know, the conflicts   
   > in academia are so bitter because the stakes are so small.   
      
   You really are one of the dumbest cunts I have ever seen!   
      
   Peer grant herding and the climate change hoax  - learn!   
      
   https://thehighwire.com/editorial/new-peer-reviewed-study-co2-ha   
   -zero-impact-on-climate-change/   
      
   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.   
      
   As reported by Slay News, much like a sponge, the Earth’s atmosphere can   
   only hold so much, meaning that carbon dioxide cannot increase   
   temperatures anymore since the saturation point was reached a long time   
   ago. The study uses a hypothetical concept of a fire inside a greenhouse   
   consistently emitting heat. The glass walls and ceiling can contain only   
   so much heat before emitting it outside. CO2 in the atmosphere is very   
   similar in that it can act as a “greenhouse” gas, but all the CO2   
   together can only contain so much heat, much like the hypothetical   
   greenhouse. The CO2 Coalition agrees with this conclusion as well. Thus,   
   amidst all the fearmongering around climate change—and the knowledge   
   that many things, including changes in solar activity heavily influence   
   Earth’s weather—Dr. Curry believes even if the Earth is warming, it is   
   not a dangerous thing, commenting:   
      
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-DOS v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)