A shorter version of my latest column

-Hayes Brown, Bluesky

Transcription / Alt Text:
Panel one: [off-screen] Fox News: Taylor Swift’s plane is emitting soo much carbon Angry Goose: Why are carbon emissions bad? Panel 2: [Man labeled Fox News being chased] Goose: Explain why carbon emissions are bad, coward!!!

    • kunaltyagi@programming.dev
      71·
      10 months ago

      Without context this link is just bad. Plant growth will not reduce CO2 levels because biosphere is temporary store or carbon (since it is a part of the carbon cycle)

      We are putting carbon (into the atmosphere) that was previously buried. So putting a tiny bit of it back into plants doesn’t help because:

      • those plants will die and release the carbon back
      • the number of plants added is inconsequential compared to the deforestation
      • the number of plants needed to offset additional carbon is humongous
    • EmperorHenry
      28·
      10 months ago

      see? This is why I’ve never believed shits like Al Gore or anyone like him. They keep saying the end of the world will be at whatever time because of global warming, and then that time passes and we’re still here.

      Al Gore said there wouldn’t be any ice in the polar regions by 2013. And we’ve passed a few more predictions that didn’t happen regarding climate change since then as well.

      If the sea levels are going to rise as much as the shitlibs say they will, why are there new houses being build on beachfronts all the time?

      Obviously something weird is going on with the weather and the climate, but no one can find any objective information about climate change because most outlets are either funded by the oil companies or they’re funded by groups that want us all to eat bugs and live in tiny houses while they fly around in private jets dozens of times a day.

      • EmergMemeHologram@startrek.website
        2·
        10 months ago

        People still build houses on flood plains too, that doesn’t mean they don’t still flood.

        People buy them with no research and the companies care that they can sell units.

        That’s not an argument.

        • EmperorHenry
          11·
          10 months ago

          So why is there still ice in the polar regions if “the science” said it would be gone 11 years ago.

          • FiskFisk33@startrek.website
            21·
            10 months ago

            “the science” never said that.

            https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSL1N2RV0K6/

            and there’s no thing like “the science”. There are many, many scientists and findings in a given area. You should never do what Gore did and look at one single finding and see it as the absolute truth. You need to look at the big picture, at meta analyses over hundreds of findings to get to get close to some kind of “core truth”.

            You aren’t disproving science as a whole by showing a scientist was wrong once.