XPost: rec.food.cooking, alt.global-warming   
   From: nospam@example.net   
      
     This message is in MIME format.  The first part should be readable text,   
     while the remaining parts are likely unreadable without MIME-aware tools.   
      
   On Sat, 23 Nov 2024, Coogan's Bluff wrote:   
      
   > 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-   
   as-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   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-DOS v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)