Reminder that Carbon Dioxide is not a "greenhouse gas"

[Anonymous No.14615178]

Biggest science news in ages. This ruling not only shuts for EPA, it also delegitimizes all bureaucratic rules which were not specified in law by congress. So many FAA restrictions on airspace use and spaceflight are also voided, some FCC rules on communications technology are now off the books, FDA rules which prevent the sale of many chemicals to individuals (ban abortion last friday, make abortion pill precursor chemicals for sale to the general public next thursday) are gone. Aside from illegal drug lab owner/operators, geologists might be the group that sees the largest immediate benefit from this.

[Anonymous No.14615185]

I don't think, judges can decide which gasses are greenhouse gasses and which aren't. I feel like, this is more a political than a scientific post. Have you considered posting in /pol/ instead? I'm sure they haven't heard of this yet.

[Anonymous No.14615192]

>>14615178
Nobody will see a benefit from this. Not surprised anyways, the US has the highest CO2 emissions on Earth. OP this is a terrible day for science.

[Anonymous No.14615213]

Educate yourself

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas

[Anonymous No.14615220]

>>14615192
If we stop global warming, civilization survives and we will create an AGI which will wipe out all life on Earth. If we do not stop global warming, life will survive, even if humanity does not (and humanity may well survive). Accelerating global warming is the only moral choice.

[Anonymous No.14615235]

>>14615213
>Educate yourself
>en.wikipedia.org

[Anonymous No.14615251]

>>14615178
This will absolutely help to make coal, gas, and diesel cheaper. Hopefully it will affect other bullshit alphabet agencies. The constitution did not want us to have an DEA, FDA, CIA, NSA, FBI, DHUD, DoEd, DoD, etc, etc.

[Anonymous No.14615295]

>>14615251
The thing is that the general publix is so fucking stupid that they will be okay with going back to coal until the funes start giving them cancer and then they will blame allah for it

[Anonymous No.14615299]

>>14615235
Refute anything on that page, ignoramus.

[Anonymous No.14615306]

>>14615235
Show me your definition of greenhouse gas then. "Anything Clarence Thomas tells me that it's a greenhouse gas"?

[Anonymous No.14615466]

>>14615295
Individuals can still sue companies for pollution. Is that what you’re talking about?

[Anonymous No.14615484]

>>14615178
This may not have happened if "The Science™'s" solution to all these problems wasn't for everyone to relinquish their autonomy to the state.

[Anonymous No.14615508]

>>14615484
The purpose of the state is to protect good individuals from evil ones.

The state had ruled in the past that making a certain amount of certain molecules was an evil that needed to be stopped, now the state seems to be changing it's mind

[Anonymous No.14615517]

>>14615508
Why is the way you're stopping that
>YOU VILL NOT EAT ZE MEAT
>YOU VILL NOT OWN ZE CAR
>YOU VILL STILL VORK IN ZE CITY
>YOU VILL RENT ZE APARTMENT
>YOU VILL VATCH ZE TV TRANNY
>YOU VILL OWN NOTHING AND BE HAPPY
and not
>Wow rampant consumerism of plastics from China to feed our dopamine-fried brains could probably be dialled back a bit
?

[Anonymous No.14615530]

>>14615517
Because plastics is by far not the driving factor for CO2 emissions.

[Anonymous No.14615550]

>>14615530
No, it's meat and cars, isn't it? Such as in my <1% of global emissions nation, where we offshore the carbon to China... that's my meat and my car being offshored, right?

[Anonymous No.14615557]

All this means is that they lazy fat asses in Congress will need to actually pass laws instead of pushing responsibility off to unelected bureaucrats. Instead of wasting time on show trials, they'll need to actually debate policy and negotiate laws to get them passed. Congress for too long has been a cushy country club for midwits that understand very little about the world they're tasked with improving. So now agencies like the EPA will make recommendations to Congress and it will be up to Congress to pass laws. They hate that because then they're on the record as supporting or opposing lots of regulations that impact people and companies directly.

[Anonymous No.14615568]

>>14615508
>protect good individuals from evil ones
Right and you get to define who is good and evil, yeah?
Whenever you infringe on someone using state power, that's just you being the good guy, right?

[Anonymous No.14615576]

>>14615178
>Reminder that Carbon Dioxide is not a "greenhouse gas."
Source?

[Anonymous No.14615591]

These conservatives really are racing to make the most retarded decisions with the power of unelected Christian fundamentalists

[Anonymous No.14615621]

>>14615192
>the US has the highest CO2 emissions on Earth
is this a lie?

[Anonymous No.14615635]

I'm always disappointed by how many soibois infest this otherwise cool board

[Anonymous No.14615653]

>>14615621

[Anonymous No.14615656]

>>14615621
No

[Anonymous No.14615659]

>>14615635
>>>/pol/

[Anonymous No.14615676]

taking the breaks of this train so the war machine is allowed to smog out civilization for a chance at being the last word in escalation.
China , India, Russia, South America all balk at environmental regulations in favor of economic output.
this is all leading to war.
for those fags not trying to be antisocial edge lords.
i suggest we accelerate and preemt the peace before shit gets too serious.
we probably have about 3-5 years. 1.5 if the dems really are not pulling punches any more.
Hunter needs to start buying alot more hookers for foreign diplomats.

[Anonymous No.14615682]

>>14615635
>election edgy teenagers feeling like they belong here

[Anonymous No.14615701]

>>14615530
How the fuck do you think that we produce plastic?

[Anonymous No.14615717]

>>14615701
What the fuck do you think, are the major sources of CO2?

[Anonymous No.14615719]

>>14615656
>cumulative from 1751
that means they guessed
>>14615653
>image for ants
useless

[Anonymous No.14615721]

>>14615719
>if a value has any uncertainty, I can disregard it

[Anonymous No.14615728]

>>14615717
Well, I don't think but I read studies stating that industrial emmissions, in particular from the burning of fossil fuels are responsible for the majority. The source of the studies seemed pretty reputable, thus I have used them in other studies

[Anonymous No.14615739]

>>14615728
And why exactly would plastic in particular require lots of burning of fossil fuel?

[Anonymous No.14615745]

>>14615739
Because plastics are a product in the refinery process. And how the fuck do you think refineries work, do you think it's hamsters turning on a wheel?

[Anonymous No.14615752]

>>14615728
The Guardian published an article listing the top 100 greenhouse emitting companies around the world. I have no idea how accurate their claims are, but they pointed to China's oil, gas, and coal industries as the #1 emitters by a large margin.

[Anonymous No.14615753]

>>14615721
you shouldn't believe things that aren't true anon

[Anonymous No.14615757]

>>14615752
I do now know. I disregard any claims pusblished by a non-reputable source

[Anonymous No.14615763]

>>14615745
And you think that the production of plastics is not only responsible for the burning of more fuel than energy-intensive processes like melting steel or producing fertiliser, but also more than transport and electricity production? Well I'd be interested in those sources, because it goes against everything one can find in a second of googling.

[Anonymous No.14615766]

>>14615299
>Refute anything on that page, ignoramus.
what, every off the wall claim is true until proven false? besides, refuting bullshit takes at least an order of magnitude greater effort than producing it.

[Anonymous No.14615767]

>>14615753
They're not true? Then what is?

[Anonymous No.14615772]

>>14615763
I see where you are coming from. I am not saying tht plastic is responsible for the CO2 emitted, but it certainly does not help that we have those fucking refieneries going at maximum to refine oil into chemicals that we can use to produce all of the cheap shit we like to but at the dollar store

[Anonymous No.14615776]

>>14615766
Do you have any specific arguments agains the measured radiative gas properties of CO2?

[Anonymous No.14615781]

>>14615763
All the estimates I've seen put the oil usage of the plastic industry at around 1% of the total, with transportation fuel making up most of the remainder. So if that number is accurate, then plastic is very lightweight as far as greenhouse emissions go. Especially when you consider that many plastics are typically used for sanitary purposes, which improves human health, thus leading to reduced downstream emissions from sick people. For example, a healthy person is much more likely to bike to work than a sick person.

[Anonymous No.14615803]

>>14615776
I don't need to have any. the style and other claims of climate change alarmists are enough to tilt the balance towards it being bullshit. besides, if you knew anything, you'd know that the agw alarmist narrative is relying on co2 only until someone points out that the math does not work out; then it's suddenly the methane from the seabed in a hypothetical runaway process; that's right, co2 emissions aren't significant even in the official catastrophe scenario of greta and the boys, it needs various never-observed miracles for it to happen.
plus, even these fantastic scenarios require much more than the properties of co2. it's rather puerile, even for this site and an agw alarmist to bring it up as if it was anything more than a minuscule component. what's next, whoever does not treat you as the second coming of the prophet jeremiah is arguing against the multiplication table?

[Anonymous No.14615815]

>>14615803
>nuh uh I don’t believe you
Now this is some shill retardation refusing to accept simple data without providing evidence or arguments himself. You know the changes in the CO2 forcing have been measured and monitored for more then 20 years right?

[Anonymous No.14615821]

>>14615803
I seriously do not get what get out making up all this shit, and not knowing how to differentiate between the alarmists trying to sell you something, and the actual people doing work and goving you evidence

[Anonymous No.14615823]

>>14615772
You either have an extremely skewed world view, or you are trying to muddy the waters. Dollar store plastic things are surely unnecessary, but extremely irrelevant concerning CO2 emissions. Transport, heat and electricity are the biggest sectors. That's why renewables, heat pumps and electric vehicles are much more crucial than dollar store crap. Oh, deforestation is also pretty bad. Less meat -> less onions -> less deforestation

[Anonymous No.14615826]

>>14615815
I don't have to produce shit. you are not believed, deal with it. keep walking up and down with your 'the end is nigh' sign, as before.

[Anonymous No.14615849]

>>14615821
you can't give me evidence because agw people are bullies and so I would not waste time on their claims. it could theoretically happen that one of them comes up with evidence I can evaluate within the very limited effort I am willing to spend on it, but this did not happen yet. they think they can convince me to become part of their flock by alternatively demanding I prove them wrong and plain name-calling. after you guys start respecting me, and give me time to reply with disrespect until I feel the balance has been restored, only then will I consider your claims.
but it still won't be my job to disprove your claims. the mere attempt from your part to turn the tables in this dishonest manner shows what you really are.

[Anonymous No.14615864]

>>14615823
I'm agreeing with you, moron. I thought you were the other imbecile denying CO2 emmissions

[Anonymous No.14615871]

>>14615849
Lol what? Nigga, this shit is getting published in thousands of studies every year, and being verified and reviewed by real scientists, not UN suits. The one tht has to prove something is you

[Anonymous No.14615887]

>>14615871
>real scientists, not UN suits
samepicture.jpg

[Anonymous No.14615889]

>>14615849
You won’t and shouldn’t get respect until you actually engage with the evidence and data posted in these threads. All you do is refuse even simple things like gas concentration or temperature measurements.

[Anonymous No.14615918]

>>14615849
>evidence I can evaluate within the very limited effort I am willing to spend on it
Fuck you, the evidence has been out there longer than you are alive. You had literally every second of your life to read it and to understand it. No matter what mentally sane people can post here, you will either deny it, or counter with some completely unrelated crap. Just like you /pol/tards do. No idea what kick it gives you. Is it pic related?

[Anonymous No.14615935]

>>14615918
Why does it hurt you on such a deep level when people question your indoctrination? You do know that constant re-questioning of old "truths" is a fundamental pillar of the scientific method, right?

[Anonymous No.14615950]

>>14615935
>indoctrination
Please explain how empirical data is indoctrination. Surely you have evidence to refute this right?

[Anonymous No.14616067]

>>14615568
>Right and you get to define who is good and evil, yeah?
>Whenever you infringe on someone using state power, that's just you being the good guy, right?
No. We love in a democratic republic so We The People elect the best and brightest from among us to decide what's best for us

[Anonymous No.14616079]

>>14615653
>per capita
So it IS a lie. Thanks for coming clean.

[Anonymous No.14616098]

>>14615950
Can you prove the validity of said data, anon? Did you collect it yourself? Can you re-collect the data to confirm it hasn't changed? No? So you're just taking it on faith, then? Exactly.

[Anonymous No.14616108]

>>14616067
If you aren't memeing you have to take your head out of your arse. What is it about scientific literacy that breeds sociopolitical myopia?

[Anonymous No.14616115]

>>14616079
It means every single amerimutt must reduce its emissions.

[Anonymous No.14616192]

>>14616115
400 million guns laughing at your unlicensed butter knife

[Anonymous No.14616209]

>>14615178
All this does is limit EPA power to unilaterally control national energy infrastructure.

[Anonymous No.14616343]

>>14616098
Lol I really fucking despise people like you. What is your goal with doing this shit? It would be a waste of time for you to replicate every scientific study in order to "prove" the validity of anything, that's why we all rely on data that gone through scrutiny and evaluate whether the authors maintained certain degree of control in the study

[Anonymous No.14616349]

>>14616079
>So it IS a lie.
No, it IS correct. Americans are fat polluters.

[Anonymous No.14616375]

>>14615826
So you have no refutation? You're just regurgitating fossil fuel propaganda? Great. That means you're an NPC.

[Anonymous No.14616384]

>>14616349
The fact that "Americans are fat polluters" is true doesn't change the fact that the "the US has the highest CO2 emissions" is false.

[Anonymous No.14616403]

>>14616384
You are technically correct, however the US has the highest cumulative emissions and the highest emissions per capita

[Anonymous No.14616415]

>>14616403
And the fact that both of those claims are also true still doesn't change the false claim into a true one. No amount of other related or unrelated claims can do that.

[Anonymous No.14616418]

>>14616415
He probably misspoke. The US has the second largest total emissions of any country, second only to China.

[Anonymous No.14616429]

>>14616418
The funny part is that I'd bet a significant amount of the Chinese emissions also have something to do with US companies using China's shittier environmental and labor laws to outsource the manufacturing of junk and trinkets and ship it back to the US.

[Anonymous No.14616439]

>>14616429
You would be correct

[e No.14616460]

>>14615826
>I don't have to produce shit. you are not believed, deal with it. keep walking up and down with your 'the end is nigh' sign, as before.
Rejection of evidence without cause is to forfeit. "What is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence", and that includes the assertion you have some unstated cause to reject the evidence.

[Anonymous No.14616505]

>>14615530
>CO2 emissions.
>more harmful than a bastardised food chain and hamfisted racemixing eugenics

[Anonymous No.14616568]

>>14616098
Most buildings have CO2 detectors so yeah

[Anonymous No.14616572]

>>14616098
Ok so you’re just shitposting

[Anonymous No.14616645]

>>14616375
cease your lame attempts at trolling
>So you have no refutation?
I don't need to have one.
>You're just regurgitating fossil fuel propaganda?
throwing big words around, are you?
>Great. That means you're an NPC.
and again.

[Anonymous No.14616648]

>>14615889
if you want me to drastically alter my lifestyle, you will show respect to get an audience. this is how the world works for non-autists.

[Anonymous No.14616654]

>>14615871
having trouble parsing 'willing to invest limited effort', are you? thousands of studies works against acceptance. have one decisive experiment and publicize only that, like michelson-morley.

[Anonymous No.14616659]

>>14615918
>Fuck you, the evidence has been out there longer than you are alive.
I am older than the agw scare. but this was a neat demonstration of an autistic meltdown from your part. what do you expect to achieve this way, convince me or something?

[Anonymous No.14616662]

>>14616415
You do realise that a country's CO2 emissions also depend on the size? Being smaller than China is no excuse that somehow justifies every burger to pollute more than the average Chinese person

[Anonymous No.14616665]

>>14616460
but I did not assert shit wrt global warming per se, I assert shit about the inferior lifeforms among us who made it their hill to die on. for all I care agw might even be real, but even in that unlikely case I'd rather assist in dooming mankind rather that grant a victory to power-hungry miscreants.

[Anonymous No.14616669]

>>14616659
>I am older
How old are you? How old, do you think is the "scare"?
>what do you expect to achieve this way, convince me or something?
You're either retarded or pretending to be. I legitimately believe that there's no way to convince you.

[Anonymous No.14616683]

>>14616669
I am 56 this year. and you should ponder the difference between 'there's no way to convince me' and 'you are incapable of approaching this subject in a way that could convince me'.

[Anonymous No.14616696]

>>14616683
Ok then you were born 25 years after man-made climate change was proven. When you were 13, they held the first world climate conference, discussing the implications and strategies. Back then, everything was already on the table: greenhouse effect, that there is a man-made contribution to it, that we must stop burning fossil fuels rather sooner than later...
I'm willing to say that one a small circle of people was aware of it in 1941 and most people had other worries. But there is no excuse to say "we didn't know what we were doing" after the seventies. Saying "show me the proof" in 2022 is not an invitation to a productive discussion. You must have seen proof countless times. If you still demand proof, that only sends the message that you rejected every evidence before and there is no reason to believe that you suddenly stop after 56 years.

[Anonymous No.14616707]

>>14616696
don't you try to gaslight me. the scare is linked to the great publicity associated with the hypothesis and there was no such publicity until the eighties, and even then it was tentative.
look, we live in a society. if you want something achieved, you have to convince other people. pouring unverifiable bullshit on them won't do; only autists think that. I sense a great deal of rage because them peasants they dont wanna respect SCIENCE(tm). that's not how it works. I used to argue, have objections etc., but the very same people who demand that I disprove what thousands of midwits with too much time on their hands gathered together, now these people suddenly prove to be incapable of even understanding a simple issue, much less answer it. that's when they switch to calling their opposition names. it is as if they are indeed just regurgitating with a vengeance whatever the party line is. and I'm happy to see their frustration.

[Anonymous No.14616715]

>>14616707
>pouring unverifiable bullshit on them won't do
What would you consider verifiable? You cannot verify past data. What's done is done. You cannot measure the temperature everywhere. If you're dedicated, you can have a as detailed record of the temperature where you live. But again, not for the past. And temperature measurements that are not biased by sunlight or the winds around your neighbourhood are actually challenging. I'd say that I could not construct a weather station that provides reliable data. And I build particle detectors for a living.

[Anonymous No.14616782]

>>14616645
Peak NPC behavior

[Anonymous No.14616809]

>>14616696
In such a serious situation it is no time for climate scientests to compete and showoff their complicated mind abilities in their read by noone papers, and confusing graphs.

If there are the scientests as you say, a good number of them who truly believe this: then it is their perogative to band together and make their literature (graphs charts) as simple and easy to read as possible, and not to diseminate 50,000 papers in 50,000 journals that no commonan will read.

Strength in numbers, power in cohesion, in consice focus.

I just remember at some grade in school don't remember one day we went to the auditorium to watch an inconvienient truth around when it came out I geuss

[e No.14616827]

>>14616665
>for all I care agw might even be real, but even in that unlikely case I'd rather assist in dooming mankind rather that grant a victory to power-hungry miscreants.
Well that's a more honest position than virtually everyone else just claiming it don't real. "It's real but I don't care" works for me, at least in terms of a defensible position. It's a lot more sensible than lying and saying "it don't real".

Kudos I guess.

[Anonymous No.14616855]

>>14616809
Look, I know that it feels like they are trying to challenge you, like when you look a gorilla into the eye. But they're not. You're just mentally challenged, you gorilla.
The IPCC publishes regular reports. They're quite readable, but long. There's also a more complex technical record, where the inclined reader can evaluate their methodology. But for people who don't want to read hundreds or thousands of pages, there's a "summary for policymakers", condensed and simplified so you can read it with a full agenda. If that's still too much, there's a list of headlines, so you can get an overview. If 6 pages are still too much, there are countless media reports on the contents. You have the full spectrum of content aimed at children up to a 3000-page report every couple years. Please, choose a complexity according to your mental abilities and you will find adequate information.

[Anonymous No.14616867]

>>14616809
Check this out, I hope the graphs are not too confusing: https://climatekids.nasa.gov/climate-change-meaning/

[Anonymous No.14616868]

>>14615823
Wrong. Its these plastics which do not end up in a landfill. They get thermal recycled in caloric power plants by burning to create electricity.

[Anonymous No.14616871]

>>14616868
And how much more electricity is produced from burning plastics compared to burning coal?

[Anonymous No.14616875]

>Big "muh plastics argument"
Hold up the numbers don't add up then
>Live in Europe
>Low overall contribution to emissions
>Told that's just because we'fe offshoring emissions to China
>Told simultaneously that the biggest contributors are domestic food and energy production
So either we aren't offshoring that much, or we are and the majority of it is in industrial manufacturing of product to consoom.

[Anonymous No.14616887]

>>14616875
>the numbers don't add up then
Can you show the numbers that don't add up?

[Anonymous No.14616890]

>>14615591
Sadly. And all it took was a few decades of spineless democrats, shameless pubicants and one massively uneven, antiquated electoral system.

Up next, prepare to be a sex registered felon because you used a condom and bought a solar panel. /pol/cels need not to worry about this though, for obvious reasons. What a mess of a country.

[Anonymous No.14616912]

>>14616887
I just did.
You asked me to reduce the majority of my emissions.
You said the majority of my emissions were being offshored hence why my country looks low emissions.
You said that the only way is to stop eating meat and driving a car, and move to a big city so I can take a slow bus to work.
Why can't I stop the overseas consoomerism instead? That's the bit that caused this mess and it isn't even good for my health.

[Anonymous No.14616931]

>>14616912
No you did not. Numbers are things like seven or 20 or MDXXIV. Also,
>You said the majority of my emissions were being offshored hence why my country looks low emissions.
I never said any of this. In fact, if you're a burger, your emissions are pretty high, despite offshoring to Chyna
>You said that the only way is to stop eating meat and driving a car, and move to a big city so I can take a slow bus to work.
Again, I said none of this. Reduction of meat consumption surely makes sense, but no one has to stop. Even reduction to the level of other first-world countries would be a good start.
>Why can't I stop the overseas consoomerism instead?
You don't be to stop anything. Only a Sith deals in absolutes. But you sound reduce. Pick low-hanging fruits. If the next supermarket is 50 miles away from Bumblefuck, Kentucky, then taking a bicycle might not be an option. It's kinda up to you to judge which fruits are low-hanging. I live in a densely populated country with excellent public transport. I'll never own a car. But I rent an apartment with shitty insulation and gas heating. I can't change that. If you own a house, you could look into insulation and heating. Heat pumps are the shit if you want to reduce your emissions from housing.
>That's the bit that caused this mess and it isn't even good for my health.
Your country is still at the top of the per-capita emissions, even without any imports. (Ok, excluding some island states that have no nuclear power plants or anything, and Arab countries that burn oil like there's no tomorrow, but that shouldn't be the bar for the rest of the world)

[Anonymous No.14616950]

>>14616931
I'm not a burger. I'm in yurop and the green party insanity here is unreal.
>HOW DARE YOU LIVE IN A HOUSE
tier bullshit.
I'm not reducing my meat consumption below nutritional protein requirements, faggot.

[Anonymous No.14616951]

>>14616931
>You don't be to stop anything. Only a Sith deals in absolutes. But you sound reduce. Pick low-hanging fruits. If the next supermarket is 50 miles away from Bumblefuck, Kentucky, then taking a bicycle might not be an option. It's kinda up to you to judge which fruits are low-hanging. I live in a densely populated country with excellent public transport. I'll never own a car. But I rent an apartment with shitty insulation and gas heating. I can't change that. If you own a house, you could look into insulation and heating. Heat pumps are the shit if you want to reduce your emissions from housing.
these are all attempts to control other people, not to solve the problem. turn against the largest offenders and eliminate them, then maybe I'll consider the possibility that you actually believe all this shit and don't just see it as a means to enforce your particular hobby horse (veganism? no cars? it's not clear.)

[Anonymous No.14616957]

>>14616855
>choose a complexity according to your mental abilities
the agw crowd, everybody. since your entire existence revolves around being superior to others and voicing this at every turn, you cannot stop yourself from uttering these insults. what do you, o brain-for-socks, can you possibly know about my mental abilities? you are like the christards who think disbelief is a sign of stupidity.