US Christian group accused of covering up sexual abuse of minors

ActuallyNot · 2023-03-22T08:20:25+00:00

Not OP, but really, what the genuine cluck? lol An NIH government study for a source? They couldn't be biased!

You may be responding to the wrong comment.

I linked to two papers. The first author's affiliations of the first is School of Criminology and Criminal Justice, Griffith University; and of the second is Kempe Children's Center, Department of Pediatrics, University of Colorado Health Sciences Center, Denver.

Neither is an NIH government study.

But you don't make clear why you think a government study would be biased.

And to claim that Christians and the LGTBQ+ community have similar rates of minor abuse? It honestly flies in the face of logic.

That's right. LGBTQ+ are the same as the community at large. Christians are worse.

Which of the two has "pride" displays and trans-sexual crossdressers featuring children in sexually explicit compromising exploitative roles in their marches, front and center?

Neither.

Try this: which has an exploitative power structure backed by the threat of hell, and teaches that the blame for sins is external, and everything can be forgiven?

ActuallyNot · 2023-03-22T08:08:41+00:00

...

You think "America is NOT a christian nation" is something that is wrong with the world?

And you think "the jews" wrote the first amendment, which set in law that it is not?

You think "abortion is healthcare" is something wrong with the world?

So this woman, who's life is at risk because she can't get an abortion of a fetus that isn't viable, and is forced to carry the infant that will not live to term, is getting healthcare?

And you think marriage equality is something that's wrong with the world?

Why?

And you think "Hate speech isn't free speech?" In which country?

And you think "social justice" is something that is wrong with the world? What to you enjoy about injustice?

ActuallyNot · 2023-03-22T03:16:34+00:00

You're doing same thing as happened to me on reddit: look at all these Christian church abusers.

Do you look at them?

Take the eye off of LGBT and put it on these Christians over here.

Did you read that paper I linked to?

You appear to disagree with the finding: "Using the data from our study, the 95% confidence limits, of the risk children would identify recognizably homosexual adults as the potential abuser, are from 0% to 3.1%. These limits are within current estimates of the prevalence of homosexuality in the general community."

On what basis?

You have an agenda.

Yes. I value the truth.

You will not get away with minimizing the rainbow crowd's participation.

The facts seem to be that they don't have more "participation" than the public in general.

Do you think that you should get away with minimizing the church crowd's "participation"?

ActuallyNot · 2023-03-22T02:31:04+00:00

A Paleozoic pollinator, and prior to the believed divergence of flowering plants from gymnosperms some time in the Triassic.

ActuallyNot · 2023-03-22T02:21:37+00:00

Never the less, it appears to show a poor understanding of history and ethics.

ActuallyNot · 2023-03-22T02:20:33+00:00

I've re-read it and my questions are largely the same:

I've seen accounts on Reddit saying the same thing you are

Saying what?

That covering up sexual abuse is a problem, or that most babies die in the womb if you count prior to 12 weeks?

Make it about Christians and turn the tables when people claim LGBTQ grooms

That's the wrong way around though, isn't it. You're blaming a problem that is related to religiosity on LGBTQ people, who are no more likely to be child molesters than the general public.

you my friend should go back.

Your opinion is noted. The fact that it doesn't seem to be based in reality is also noted.

ActuallyNot · 2023-03-22T01:54:22+00:00

I've seen accounts on Reddit saying the same thing you are...shill accounts.

Saying what? That covering up sexual abuse is a problem, or that most babies die in the womb if you count prior to 12 weeks?

Make it about Christians and turn the tables when people claim LGBTQ groom

If that's what the evidence shows, then isn't it the opposite? Christians trying to turn the tables and blame the LGBTQ community when it is them that sexually abuse children?

There are studies that show that religiosity predicts child molestation. Religious Affiliations Among Adult Sexual Offenders

religiosity was linked to a higher number of sex offense victims and more convictions for sex offenses. Those sex offenders who reported regular church attendance, a belief in supernatural punishment, and religion as important in their daily lives had more known victims, younger victims, and more convictions for sex offenses than the sex offenders who reported irregular or no church attendance and no or less intense allegiance to religious beliefs and practices.

And there's a stack of literature that shows that LGBTQ are not more likely to molest children than the general population.

For example: Are children at risk for sexual abuse by homosexuals?

which they have and do.

Granted they do. But the do at a rate similar to the cis population, whereas religious people to it more.

ActuallyNot · 2023-03-22T01:52:23+00:00

I don't think that's right, mate.

ActuallyNot · 2023-03-22T01:41:26+00:00

You think "America is NOT a christian nation" is something that is wrong with the world?

And you think "the jews" wrote the first amendment, which set in law that it is not?

You think "abortion is healthcare" is something wrong with the world?

So this woman, who's life is at risk because she can't get an abortion of a fetus that isn't viable, and is forced to carry the infant that will not live to term, is getting healthcare?

And you think marriage equality is something that's wrong with the world?

Why?

And you think "Hate speech isn't free speech?" In which country?

And you think "social justice" is something that is wrong with the world?
What to you enjoy about injustice?

ActuallyNot · 2023-03-21T22:12:51+00:00

Aaaaah, so when Christians do it it's a problem?

Of course. How would covering up sexual abuse of minors not be a problem?

50% of black babies dying in the womb isn't child abuse.

Most babies die in the womb, if you count prior to 12 weeks.

Call it abuse if you want, but its normal, unavoidable, not sexual abuse an not being covered up.

Sterilizing and mutilating children isn't abuse.

Would be if it was happening.

No, let's zoom in on the Christian community to see what anomalies we can find there.

When Christianity is operating as a child abuse ring is needs to be called out. Because sexual abuse of children is bad, and we should know about it and act against it.

ActuallyNot · 2023-03-21T21:43:47+00:00

You know what that washing of "feet" is a euphemism of the time for.

Still is in the middle east.

ActuallyNot · 2023-03-21T07:12:46+00:00

LGBT people are much more likely to molest kids.

Than Christians?

You'll have to show me your data on that.

I quick glance at the literature suggests not: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8008535/

But religious people are more likely to be sex offenders, and the more religious, the more victims, the younger victims, and more convictions for sex offences: https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/religious-affiliations-among-adult-sexual-offenders

ActuallyNot · 2023-03-21T07:12:02+00:00

Which act?

Although to be fair, we're probably going to have different opinions on that, an matter which act we're talking about, since I don't really go in for demons.

ActuallyNot · 2023-03-21T02:00:25+00:00

Whoa.

ActuallyNot · 2023-03-20T23:03:35+00:00

If people spent their time with real issues rather than seeing things in the clouds, society would be both better and less mental too.

ActuallyNot · 2023-03-20T22:59:08+00:00

The abusers, in the case of the gay pimps pimping out their adopted children, the clients as well.

That's not a cover up. That's the people involved not being caught yet.

A cover up is like in the OP where the "International Churches of Christ leaders failed to report as well as plotted to conceal abuse of women and children".

Where are they finding the clients?

Locally, according to your press article.

ActuallyNot · 2023-03-20T22:56:13+00:00

Yeah, I'm confident of that.

ActuallyNot · 2023-03-20T12:14:04+00:00

Why?

ActuallyNot · 2023-03-20T12:11:52+00:00

Who are you claiming covered up that abuse?

ActuallyNot · 2023-03-20T08:10:03+00:00

So they arrested him with no charges.

On suspicion of human trafficking. And they've spoken with say least 5 victims.

ActuallyNot · 2023-03-20T07:25:55+00:00

Okay. Give me an example of the LGBT community covering up child abuse.

You know there's thousands of various churches doing that. Tens of thousands if you count victims.

ActuallyNot · 2023-03-20T07:22:56+00:00

Hillary Clinton's emails

Were thoroughly investigated by the GOP. No crime.

Hunter Biden's laptop

Allowing the GOP to get upset by censorship when they are cracked down on for showing dick-picks of Hunter. And literally nothing else so far.

Nancy Pelosi's insider trading

Which specific trade did she do with inside information?

And how is that worse than subverting democracy or justice?

Anthony Fauci and Bill Gates's planned coronavirus and vaccine scam,

Neither of who have a political affiliation.

Bill Clinton's involvement with Epstein Island

And Trump's.

Hillary Clinton killing Epstein,

More likely Trump. Hillary didn't have any direct involvement with Epstein's human trafficking.

rigging the 2020 presidential election,

If you genuinely think that, then let Fox New's lawyers know. They're seem to be trying to run with the defence that the lie was newsworthy. You must believe they're missing a trick.

ActuallyNot · 2023-03-20T07:18:05+00:00

They created both the software and the hardware?

Or within the simulation, were an entity programmed like the other entities?

ActuallyNot · 2023-03-20T07:15:36+00:00

So far, Biden interests distributed money to Bidens. Reporting on it before anything unethical is discovered is a bit piss poor, considering the corruption bar set by the Trumps.

ActuallyNot · 2023-03-20T05:58:10+00:00

$1million?

FFS, amateurs.

The trump family was paid $2 Billion by the Saudis.

ActuallyNot · 2023-03-20T04:29:31+00:00

... because? ...

ActuallyNot · 2023-03-20T03:51:51+00:00

Because that follows from the other laws of the universe. This is an exception.

It's not inconsistent, Vulptex.

If there is a speed limit, you get length contraction and time dilation. If there isn't you don't. As it happens, you do, but neither follows from the other laws. You need to discover experimentally which one is the case.

Of course, then there's the question of why those other laws are the way they are. You can't honestly avoid the conclusion that it's all a matrix.

How does your belief that it's a construction interact with your religious and eschatological beliefs?

Is god and the afterlife also part of the simulation? Or is god who wrote the program, or the hardware running it?

ActuallyNot · 2023-03-20T03:41:37+00:00

You've implied that that means declaring independence from your country.

Negative. I did not. I simply said the law can be wrong. You're welcome to say that the law is never wrong.

So when you say secession is a human right, BTW, what did you mean secession from is a human right?

That's what I'm trying to figure out. I think you may be jumping to conclusions.

You said secession was a human right. We were talking about the Ukraine war. I didn't jump. I took a small to normal-sized step and there conclusions were.

ActuallyNot · 2023-03-20T03:37:12+00:00

It's not the fact that Trump is getting arrested.

Good. Because the part of "law and order" seem to be pretty invested in the law not applying in this case.

It's the fact that they're combing his entire life to find a reason to put him in prison

The rumors of his arrest pertain to stuff that came up in the Muller report. It's not from his distant past. Cohen went to jail for this incident.

while all the Democratic elites have committed so much worse crimes and are always allowed to get away with it.

Such as?

ActuallyNot · 2023-03-20T03:33:57+00:00

That would be my first guess. It's likely the case if he genuinely believes that his child is evil, as he was overheard saying.

But even an psychologist wouldn't diagnose someone based on a newspaper article, and my background is mathematics.

It's certainly plausible that he's a lazy man-child.

ActuallyNot · 2023-03-20T03:31:28+00:00

Only in such a polarized time as this would people think that only one side ever diddles kids.

The LGBT community doesn't cover up the guilty. Only Christians do that.

ActuallyNot · 2023-03-19T23:26:10+00:00

Remember who is abusing kids when these "people" are pushing for "religious freedom" to discriminate against the LGBT community.

And know that the reason behind the anti abortion laws is to produce a poorly-parented group of victims to meet their disgusting needs.

ActuallyNot · 2023-03-19T22:13:37+00:00

Also, mammal teeth are crazy. You find one, and you can tell: Monotreme, with platypus-type bill.

All the more amazing given adult platypus don't have teeth today.

ActuallyNot · 2023-03-19T22:03:45+00:00

Paranoid schizophrenia is an unpleasant condition. And maybe if he were an atheist, he might have formed the belief that the government or aliens has swapped his baby for a surveillance device.

But with a Christian world view, the step is shorter and more complete. The baby is evil by some demonic or satanic influence. He now has his justifications for the physical abuse of the infant.

ActuallyNot · 2023-03-19T21:58:58+00:00

It's technically both.

Either Newton's or Maxwell's equations are correct. It turns out that it's Maxwell's.

If you assume:

The spacetime is homogeneous and isotropic.
The laws of physics are the same in all inertial frames of reference (The Galilean relativity principle.)
There is a maximum speed.

You get special relativity.

If you assume:

The spacetime is homogeneous and isotropic.
The laws of physics are the same in all inertial frames of reference (The Galilean relativity principle.)
There isn't a maximum speed.

You get Newtonian mechanics.

You can't get both. The maximum speed axioms are incompatible.

ActuallyNot · 2023-03-19T21:43:16+00:00

Do they have different fact-checkers for the words than the pictures?

It doesn't look like it.

Volodymyr Zelensky is Jewish.

True

He supports the Nazi Azov Battalion

Not true. The Azov Battalion was disbanded and absorbed into the Ukrainian national guard. There is now an Azov Brigade. Is that what they're talking about? Who knows? They're certainly not fact-checking.

the two Nazi parties

What two are those, do you think?

ActuallyNot · 2023-03-19T21:42:33+00:00

You should write to Fox's defamation defence lawyers to let them know they've forgotten the "truth" defence.

They've got Dan Webb to lead its defence. Perhaps start by emailing him. As one of the most expensive and sought after trial lawyers in the country, I'm sure he'll thank you for pointing out this fail-safe line of defence that he has overlooked.

ActuallyNot · 2023-03-19T21:37:28+00:00

No, not information. You can't send any message faster than light.

It's very important, because faster than light travel is backwards time travel for some observers. The universe doesn't have that, and if it did, it would fuck up causality.

the obviousness of this makes me question your motives for confusing it such

Really. What motives are you ascribing?

ActuallyNot · 2023-03-19T21:33:51+00:00

No limit would also be something arbitrarily set. Why would that be the case unless it's set by a program?

ActuallyNot · 2023-03-19T21:31:10+00:00

You've said that "self determination" is a human right.

You've implied that that means declaring independence from your country.

But you've said people should only be able to do that if they can get away with it.

What's the difficulty you're having here?

ActuallyNot · 2023-03-19T21:28:18+00:00

I stand corrected

ActuallyNot · 2023-03-19T09:41:37+00:00

He's committed tax crimes, political funding crimes, perversion of the course of justice crimes, crimes with classified documents, and was corrupt when he was in power, funneling public funds to himself, and getting billions for his family from the Russians and Saudis.

ActuallyNot · 2023-03-19T09:38:17+00:00

Nope. He lost.

ActuallyNot · 2023-03-19T09:36:44+00:00

Interacting with a belief in evil.

ActuallyNot · 2023-03-19T09:36:08+00:00

Atheists don't get evil babies.

ActuallyNot · 2023-03-19T09:35:05+00:00

Which he derived from Special relativity, which deals with the speed of light and time.

Not quite true. The derivation was independent from special rel.

The first gravity theory of Einstein was about a variable speed of light.

Really?

Contradicting Maxwell's equations?

When was his work on this theory published?

ActuallyNot · 2023-03-19T09:26:02+00:00

All possible universes fall into two sets: those that have a maximum speed, and those that don't.

Don't be overly surprised if the this one is one or the other.

ActuallyNot · 2023-03-19T09:22:50+00:00

So it's only a human right if they can get away with it?

ActuallyNot · 2023-03-19T09:21:54+00:00

Global Research is a trustworthy site

Nope.

A trustworthy site doesn't use a faked photo.

ActuallyNot · 2023-03-18T21:37:39+00:00

quantum mechanics has shown us instant transmission of information thru quantum entanglement

Unless that's changed recently, you can't transmit information that way. You need information at the end about the measurement of the entangled particle, which has to be sent in a classical signal, limited by light speed.

ActuallyNot · 2023-03-18T21:34:04+00:00

No speed cap would also be arbitrary.

ActuallyNot · 2023-03-18T21:30:00+00:00

Time dilation has been proven, both with experiments on earth and by observing massive objects such as black holes.

Yep.

You have to use it for GPS. The time measurement has to be so precise, that if you don't account for relativistic time dilation from the GPS satellite being in a weaker gravitational field, you get your position wrong.

And without it, you can't explain the advance of Mercury's orbit.

ActuallyNot · 2023-03-18T21:14:24+00:00

It's in English. And Ukrainian.

ActuallyNot · 2023-03-18T21:13:04+00:00

Oh you think everyone who doesn't want to obey some regulation or pay some land tax should be able to declare themselves independent?

ActuallyNot · 2023-03-18T21:11:46+00:00

The joys of Christianity. You get to think your baby is "evil".

ActuallyNot · 2023-03-18T05:32:24+00:00

Trying to make up in ball what she lacks in marbles.

ActuallyNot · 2023-03-18T05:15:57+00:00

you skipped the part where they were attacked

No. That's the bit I mentioned: "being invaded and annexed by a foreign power."

and the part where they voted

Ahh. "Voted". Where neither of the options was to remain in the Ukraine.

ActuallyNot · 2023-03-18T03:42:25+00:00

Well God damnit how can I parse any of this if the definitions are squirrelly and changing.

Sometimes you have to read the paper to understand. Sometimes I read it, and still don't understand.

All they did was fiddle with a computer model until it matches reality.

I don't think they tweaked HadCM3 for this paper.

They are picking and choosing what to model in the system.

No, they're not avoiding modelling anything that they had the understanding and computing power to model.

And the results are consistent with other models, as demonstrated by Meehl et al. Completely different model. The observed warning is still anthropogenic.

Stott et al got similar results later still with HadGEM1.

HadGEM1 was capable of showing the warming on each continent was likely anthropogenic.

There's gotta be better proof for anthropogenic climate change than this.

Proof of anthropogenic climate change is clearest from first principles. The increase in CO2 will result in a warmer planet.

This kind of paper is investigating the dynamics of that: How much of the observed warning is anthropogenic?

ActuallyNot · 2023-03-18T03:34:12+00:00

And you haven't noticed the fires, floods and famines?

Nor the collapse in biodiversity?

ActuallyNot · 2023-03-18T03:30:35+00:00

It's stretching "self-determination" to cover being invaded and annexed by a foreign power.

ActuallyNot · 2023-03-17T13:43:59+00:00

You need to use more natural rubber, and less synthetic rubber polymers in the tyres. Then they can burn them to their heart's content.

Planting trees only works if the tree never dies, and never burns.

And even then it only sequesters carbon while it's growing. A mature forest is a ghg source, because it takes in CO2, but releases both CO2 and CH4. And CH4 is a lot more global earthing for the C than CO2.

ActuallyNot · 2023-03-17T13:05:06+00:00

So this is saying that non-human non-atmospheric composition external forgings are mostly responsible for land temperature variations?

Good question. No. But they're using "external variation" differently from how it would be used today.

Those are the correlations between the average of the model runs and the observed temperature. (It talks about them in the middle column of the third page; page 2135 of the journal). So by "external forcings" they mean everything that is driving the model: natural forcing, plus anthropogenic forcing. And "internal variation" those things that affect the observed temperature that aren't due to any forcing driving the model.

Are the variations the same as the temperature increases that we care about?

Yes, including those.

It kinds seems like it's saying that human C02 emissions can at most only be responsible for 20-40% of variations.

It seems like that at first glance. But they're calling all forcing "external".

ActuallyNot · 2023-03-17T12:23:51+00:00

Again gonna have to see a source before I buy that. We can say "climate change killed this many people" but the real answer is more "it's complicated"

It's an estimate. From Impact of regional climate change on human health, Patz et al, Nature (2005)

Pollution isn't climate change. There's 4 threats causing the mass extinction we're seeing. Habitat loss, change change, pollution, over-exploitation. They're basically independent of you only count land use change as habitat loss, and not the range changes from climate change.

it's not new it's from the old "there's too many people we all going to die" nonsense that was popularized with shit like the "population bomb".

We're lucky population growth has slowed. But there's more people than the planet can carry.

Got the climate grifters on the one side selling nonsense with fear mongering and the people on the otherside seeing the shit and complete ignoring the problems.

There's a false equivalence there. On one side there's people wanting policy to be informed by the science. Then there's the fossil fuel money backed opinion that the science is wrong.

ActuallyNot · 2023-03-17T08:30:47+00:00

Back in 2000 the anthropogenic part of climate change killed about 160,000. It'll be worse now. Cause of death of nearly half: malnutrition.

ActuallyNot · 2023-03-17T07:05:59+00:00

Human extinction is an unlikely outcome of a three degree temperature rise.

Three degrees would cause an unpleasant population drop. But humans and black rats won't be amongst the extinctions.

The most likely doomsday scenario is nuclear war

Conflict is related to hunger and resource scarcity. Which in turn is related (in part) to climate change.

ActuallyNot · 2023-03-17T07:03:05+00:00

How do you go from this chart to California saying I'm no longer allowed to have gas powered lawn tools?

Because to get atmospheric CO2 to stop increasing you need to cut emissions by 80% or 90% from 1990 levels.

ActuallyNot · 2023-03-17T07:01:02+00:00

It works for the GOP too.

ActuallyNot · 2023-03-17T06:32:55+00:00

Natural forcing in that paper is volcanic and solar radiation.

If you're into the maths, then Meehl et al (2004), is more fun. They show that the response to the forcings are approximately additive. (That is the change in temperature due to the sum of two different forcings is about equal to the sum of the change in temperatures due to each forcing). So they work plot the temperature response to each forcing twice. Once driving the model with the forcing, and once (which the call the residual) by subtracting the temperature response of the model using all the forcings from the temperature response of the model using all the other forcings.

Which is not important for understanding climate change, but it's still very fun.

They also decompose the temperature into the response to natural and anthropogenic parts.

The model is a bit more polished. Stott et al (2000) was one of the first papers using output from the Hadley Centre's HadCM3. Meehl et al used the US department of energy model PCM.

ActuallyNot · 2023-03-17T06:30:33+00:00

I'll have to come back tomorrow with some better denialist shit. Thanks for trying to reach me, I think?

No problem. It's been 15 years since I was getting into climate change arguments regularly, so there's probably some more recent papers.

I lot of the denialist stuff seems to have not changed in that time though.

his shit from IPCC is interesting, one of the models predicts that global warming will correct itself https://images.theconversation.com/files/63411/original/kx8srfsn-1414769757.jpg

RCPs are emission scenarios. RCP 2.6 requires that carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions start declining by 2020 and go to zero by 2100. We're already 2023, and CO2 emissions are not declining. They're still increasing except for the CoVID blip in 2020.

ActuallyNot · 2023-03-17T06:24:43+00:00

I see you didn't read the paper.

It's a decomposition of 20th century warming into that due to natural and anthropogenic warming. The warming since the middle of it is anthropogenic.

ActuallyNot · 2023-03-17T06:11:41+00:00

There's been scientific proof that the warming is anthropogenic for at least 23 years

ActuallyNot · 2023-03-17T05:55:03+00:00

The hockey stick graph didn't make predictions. It was a reconstruction of past temperatures. By Mann, Bradely and Hughes.

It has been confirmed over a dozen times.

Are you talking about Al Gore's CO2 concentration graph, similar to the graph I link twice above. It's also correct.

ActuallyNot · 2023-03-17T05:47:37+00:00

Figure one from the paper I already linked is inverted, but at least it's not mixing pre-modern geology temperature reconstructions with a medium modern geological scale carbon model.

ActuallyNot · 2023-03-17T05:28:10+00:00

It looks like we were as high as 1000ppm less than 100 million years ago.

Yep, if we return to the hothouse of the mid cretaceous, we'll all be pretty completely fucked.

Our own ancestor was probably a placental mammal already. Tyrannosaurus Rex and Triceratops hadn't appeared yet. But any infrastructure built by Pleurocoelus would be well suited to the new sea level.

Unfortunately there isn't any, and the most valuable part of our infrastructure would be under water.

This graph sure as fuck makes it look like we are coming out of a cooling period

The broken axis is misleading. The SCRIPPS graph I link to above is a clearer view of the current warming on top of the glaciation cycles of the Quaternary. We're warming from the top of a warm period.

which may explain the entirely of the C02 increases

The CO2 emissions from fossil fuel combustion already entirely explain them.

Just because C02 is a greenhouse gas, and we have observed it increasing, does not mean that C02 has increased the earth's temperature

Yes it does. That's what an increased greenhouse effect means.

There are confounding factors, such as other gases having a much much larger greenhouse effect.

Methane has an impact too, on the few to several centuries scale. But CO2 is responsible for 74% or 91% of the long lived greenhouse gas warming, depending on whether you count or discount the overlaps with other greenhouse gasses.

If only you had some data to support this assertion.

https://gml.noaa.gov/ccgg/carbontracker/

What if temperature increases caused C02 levels in the atmosphere to increase?

Then the CO2 would need to come from somewhere. And it's not. The oceans are absorbing CO2.

Edit: How am I supposed to conclude that there's a causal relationship from this graph?

Don't use that graph. The CO2 levels are from an older version of geocarb, and the temperature levels are from and even more ancient estimate that has been thoroughly superseded. It was from a time when it was thought that the earth just oscillated between "warm" and "cold". It's not true, and is not calibrated to the same timescale. You would need to be trying to mislead your audience to plot those two together on the same chart, because we had much better temperature reconstructions even at early versions of geocarb.

CO2 has warmed the earth at between 1.5°C and 6.3°C per doubling throughout the last 420 million years at least.

Are you starting from the assumption that all C02 increases since 1750 are because of fossil fuels?

No I'm comparing the atmospheric increases in CO2 since 1750 to the CO2 emissions from fossil fuels since 1750. The emissions from fossil fuels are 154% of the increase in the atmosphere.

ActuallyNot · 2023-03-17T04:54:33+00:00

People have been saying doubling the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere will increase global mean surface temperatures by 3°C for 125 years.

The difference is, they've been right.

ActuallyNot · 2023-03-17T03:25:15+00:00

Right? It's not like climate science is brain surgery.

1) Increasing greenhouse gasses increases the greenhouse effect.

And that's it.
You don't need a PhD to understand.

ActuallyNot · 2023-03-17T03:22:31+00:00

The above poster is a paid poster here to disrupt conversations on this site.

Obviously false, if you think about the economics of it.

Click "block user" and move on.

Why haven't you?

ActuallyNot · 2023-03-17T03:21:49+00:00

Insurance premiums are being pushed up by sea level rise.

https://theconversation.com/coastal-home-buyers-are-ignoring-rising-flood-risks-despite-clear-warnings-and-rising-insurance-premiums-179603

ActuallyNot · 2023-03-17T03:04:00+00:00

Current global consensus is, much like those in Crimea, they have a home in Ukraine.

ActuallyNot · 2023-03-17T02:57:58+00:00

I agree that pollution is also a problem.

I disagree that CO2 is a boogieman.

ActuallyNot · 2023-03-17T02:48:54+00:00

Why is C02 varying over time and similarly to the past an indication that something is wrong or out of balance?

The increase in CO2 is dramatic, and throwing the climate into a state that no existing species has co-existed with.

It is not similar to the past.

Anthropogenic climate change is pseudo science because there's no proven causal link between C02 and temperature

You've not heard of the greenhouse effect?

The causal link between CO2 and temperature has been understood since the late 1890s at least. CO2 absorbance is greater in the bands associated with earth's heat radiation than it is in the sun's. So it slows heat escaping into space more than it slows the sun's heat reaching earth. This leads to a warming called the greenhouse effect.

It's proven.
It's causal.
It's from physical first principles.

no consensus on how much C02 increase is naturally ocurring.

This is wrong. CO2 can be tracked. The increase in the atmosphere is not occurring naturally. All the natural systems are absorbing CO2. (Overall. For a short period of time during a bushfire, you get positive emissions from the land).

That's fair, but look at how many people are living nice long lives now that we have done this.

That's not an argument against climate science. I imagine that energy from other sources would be just as good for development.

"The point is that the floods droughts sea level rise and changing climate patterns is bad for us and for existing ecosystems." Sure, that's arguably bad, but it's also a far cry from an existential threat

People die in floods and fires.

So you are claiming that C02 is increasing solely due to human activity.

Yes.

You can't prove this extreme claim.

World emissions from fossil fuel combustion since 1750, as at 2020: 1.70 trillion tonnes

Increase in atmospheric CO2 since 1750: (413ppm(v)-280ppm(v))*((44.01 g/mol)/(28.96 g/mol)) = increase of 202 ppm(w)

[CO2 concentration in 2020 - CO2 concentration in 1750, converted to mass, by multiplying by the molecular mass of CO2 over the mean molecular mass of air.]

Mass of the atmosphere = 5.5 quadrillion tons
Increase in CO2 in the atmosphere = 1.1 trillion tonnes = 5.5 quadrillion tonnes * (202/1,000,000)

So the combustion of fossil fuels has contributed about 1.7/1.1 = 154% of the increase in carbon dioxide concentration that we observe in the atmosphere.

154% >= 100%
CO2 from fossil fuel combustion >= atmospheric increase in CO2.

Q.E.D.

ActuallyNot · 2023-03-17T02:24:03+00:00

Stolen elections have consequences.

Claiming the elections were stolen doesn't appear to be working out for Fox News.

We hope it will have consequences for Trump.

ActuallyNot · 2023-03-17T02:11:16+00:00

What's the actual reality, in your opinion?

ActuallyNot · 2023-03-17T02:04:30+00:00

Yeah. The Russians propaganda machine lied about that.

Russians aren't necessarily supportive of Russia. They had a home and they had security in Ukraine.

https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2022/03/20/latvia-russian-support-putin-war-00018585

ActuallyNot · 2023-03-17T02:02:31+00:00

Tons of greenhouse growers intentionally boost the C02 levels up to 1000 or 1200ppm.

Growth will be limited by water, soil nutrients, sunlight or CO2. When there's enough of the other 3, increasing CO2 will increase growth (and deplete soil nutrients more rapidly). If you've got a greenhouse in a sunny area, and you're going through a lot of fertilizer, you will have more production. The economics would be more against if you were paid for nutritional value and not weight.

It won't help most farmers as much, as soil fertility is the most common limiting factor in an agricultural situation.

It just seems like hubris to me to say 350ppm is the be all end all answer forever, and that we must control the atmosphere at all costs to maintain this C02 level.

If we lose 80% or 90% of the planet's biodiversity we lose a huge resource too.

But technology certainly will help agriculture. It's the low tech farmers of Africa and South East Asia who will starve on mass first.

They've been doing it in waves since climate change started to bite in the 80s.

ActuallyNot · 2023-03-17T01:46:58+00:00

"Within the decade, there will be no more snows of Kilimanjaro."

From the paper: Kilimanjaro Ice Core Records: Evidence of Holocene Climate Change in Tropical Africa.

Over the 20th century, the areal extent of Kilimanjaro’s ice fields has decreased 80%, and if current climatological conditions persist, the remaining ice fields are likely to disappear between 2015 and 2020.

The loss as at 2 years ago was 90%. But not, as you point out, 100%. Because Gore talked about one particular point on the African glacial loss landscape that went slower than predicted, it doesn't mean that the science is wrong. It means that that data point was misunderstood. (Slightly).

ActuallyNot · 2023-03-17T01:28:17+00:00

Thanks, being-poisoned. Your openness to taking on board information does you credit as does the ego-less way you do it. It's also kind of surprising here.

There are other direct effects of increased CO2 too. Woody plants tend to accelerate growth less than non-woody plants. So you get an imbalance in ecosystems favouring vines, which include parasitic plants. Vines use climate change to catch a ride on the trees

Some plants respond to increased CO2 by reducing the size and/or number of stomata. This increases drought-resistance but also decreases transpiration: Why Does Amazon Precipitation Decrease When Tropical Forests Respond to Increasing CO2?

But most of the ecological destruction comes via the greenhouse effect.

ActuallyNot · 2023-03-17T01:21:27+00:00

You need to do that with renewables as well. It's naive to think solar and wind aren't also influenced by business interests.

The economics is much weaker. Everyone owns the sunlight that hits their roof. I can pay for solar panels by running the solar panel for 18 months.

The former especially require you to buy expensive panels that need rare earth metals to work. So the mining and manufacturing interests certainly have a stake in their wide spread adoption.

The rare earth mining industry is $9.5 billion and not dependent on green energy solutions. They are necessary for all kinds of electronics.

The fossil fuel industry is $988.95 billion, and every part of it has greenhouse emissions.

Which side will be paying for most of the misinformation?

That is why that side is against the consensus of scientists.

Similar situation with wind and metals and construction needed to build turbines.

That's different. There there are many players in the game who could meet demand. The earth's crust has lots of metals.

The climate "religion" has less to do with realistic concerns about rising temperatures but more to do with hysterical takes by environmentalist types, the doomsayers, the extreme conservation types that think any change is bad.

The science behind climate change is perfectly doomsaying enough. Steve Milloy has made a career denying that. And he's lying.

ActuallyNot · 2023-03-16T23:59:32+00:00

The above poster is a paid poster here to disrupt conversations on this site.

Obviously false, if you think about the economics of it.

Click "block user" and move on.

Why haven't you?

ActuallyNot · 2023-03-16T23:54:19+00:00

You seem to be jumping the gun with your less nutritious conclusion.

No that's been measured. It's just not understood:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1360138522002473

Furthermore, you must consider that increased yields most likely will negate this potential negative impact.

"Just eat more"?

A lot of people only eat when they're hungry. A lot of animals eat at their capacity. Reduced nutrition would be bad for both.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2022/12/221222162410.htm

Interesting paper. But it doesn't imply that plants will be more nutritious, nor that the answer to that is eat more.

And in either case natural disasters and loss of arable land will dominate before we see 3°C of warming. And is dominating now in parts of the world nearer the equator.

ActuallyNot · 2023-03-16T23:44:16+00:00

I propose that there is no C02 imbalance

Nope. That CO2 concentrations are increasing has been measured.

350ppm number is arbitrary and based off of climate change pseudo science.

1) CO2 is a greenhouse gas.

2) Increasing greenhouse gas concentration increases the greenhouse effect.

Which one of those is pseudo-science? Explain what the correct science is.

C02 has varied widely throughout the earth's history.

Yes. It is precisely carbon from the Paleozoic that we're returning to the atmosphere now by burning fossil fuels. The point is that the floods droughts sea level rise and changing climate patterns is bad for us and for existing ecosystems.

That may be true, but you have not answered the question "What percent of C02 increase is caused by human activity?"

Human activity has released about 200% of the increase into the atmosphere. The earth has absorbed about half. Is that 100% or 200%?

You choose.

Most people assume it is 100% because this is the way the media presents it.

Not as wrong as the OP article. Lets call it 100%. It's certainly not less.

ActuallyNot · 2023-03-16T23:15:28+00:00

What percent of C02 increase is caused by human activity

The imbalance in CO2 in the atmosphere is all caused by fossil fuel combustion, and about half of the CO2 from fossil fuel combustion remains in the atmosphere. The oceans and the terrestrial biosphere have both been sinking carbon, except in a few years where global bushfires have been especially harsh. And in those years the terrestrial biosphere plus the oceans have been a carbon sink.

Should we reduce atmospheric C02 to 0%?

No. That would:
1) Be impossible
2) Cause very dangerous cooling. We're talking snowball earth - glaciation to the equator.
3) Kill most living things.

What percentage do you think is appropriate, and why?

350ppm was considered safe for keeping warming below 1.5°C, which was considered dangerous for human agriculture and infrastructure.

There are concerns that there may be harsh consequences for vulnerable ecosystems at that level, which is a valid concern too. But without being too conservative 350ppm.

ActuallyNot · 2023-03-16T23:07:27+00:00

I would think that too if I didn't know anything about it.

The reality is nutritional value of many food crops drops under high CO2 environment, and while warming opens up arable land in Russia and Canada, most of the world suffers in food production from droughts, flooding, erosion, and salination.

Furthermore changing climate changes the crops that are viable, so farmers in the underdeveloped world also need education about changing crops and even practises to avoid increasing famine, even without the floods and droughts.

All that aside, CO2 is not plant food. Plants still get their nutrients from soil.

ActuallyNot

MODERATOR OF