Poll of the Day > Another great video on anti-global warming.

(+) Yeah! (+)

36 minutes of an actual scientist pretty easily making fools out of cable and internet McExperts.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t0x46-enxsA

---

This is in relation to the Australian bushfires, which infact were NOT caused by global warming...

Global warming still real though, and ironically - will be caused greatly BY the Australian bush fires

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/jan/24/australian-bushfires-will-cause-jump-in-co2-in-atmosphere-say-scientists

---

Lokarin posted...

This is in relation to the Australian bushfires, which infact were NOT caused by global warming...

Global warming still real though, and ironically - will be caused greatly BY the Australian bush fires

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/jan/24/australian-bushfires-will-cause-jump-in-co2-in-atmosphere-say-scientists

I watched in a video by thunderf00t (another real scientist) that trees have little overall impact on CO2 levels because all the CO2 they remove from the atmosphere, they eventually release once they die. (That being a rebutal to TeamTrees wasting $20)

Even though I'm not a scientist and shouldn't pretend to be one, I wonder if the CO2 would just be taken back out once the wildlife grows back.

The video I posted is about debunking global warming deniers, though, so you're preaching to the choir.

---

ah yes youtube

the place of truth and facts

---

Mead posted...

ah yes youtube

the place of truth and facts

If you listen to a lifelong scientist who cites his sources? Yes. If you listen to Ben Shapiro or Steven Crowder? No.

---

Yellow posted...

I watched in a video by thunderf00t (another real scientist) that trees have little overall impact on CO2 levels because all the CO2 they remove from the atmosphere, they eventually release once they die. (That being a rebutal to TeamTrees wasting $20)

Even though I'm not a scientist and shouldn't pretend to be one, I wonder if the CO2 would just be taken back out once the wildlife grows back.

The video I posted is about debunking global warming deniers, though, so you're preaching to the choir.

Neat, Ilike thunderf00t videos... you're right that trees are relatively low on the CO2 levels tiers, but Australia is pretty dang big and it was a LOT of trees.

Will just need to wait to know for sure

---

Lokarin posted...

This is in relation to the Australian bushfires, which infact were NOT caused by global warming...

What about all the earthquakes and tsunamis? Surely those are caused by global warming?!

---

Zeus posted...

What about all the earthquakes and tsunamis? Surely those are caused by global warming?!

No one claimed that.

And if one person did, that one person is wrong.

---

Yellow posted...

If you listen to a lifelong scientist who cites his sources? Yes. If you listen to Ben Shapiro or Steven Crowder? No.

whoever gets more views is the one telling the truth

---

Mead posted...

whoever gets more views is the one telling the truth

So you're saying we should ask PewDiePie what he thinks about it?
---

ParanoidObsessive posted...

So you're saying we should ask PewDiePie what he thinks about it?

It's funny you say that because PewDiePie came out against global warming following Democratic media going nuts (and Sweden putting him on their hate list) after he said the n-word in a livestream.

Because politics have a copyright on reality, and he didn't like those guys, he just jumped sides. He railed against Conservatives before all that went down.

---

So you're saying global warning used to be real, but is now a myth? Gotcha.
---

ParanoidObsessive posted...

So you're saying global warning used to be real, but is now a myth? Gotcha.

If for some reason you listen to everything the Swedish guy with Tourette's says, than yes.

If you listen to the scientific community, then no.

---

Yellow posted...

I watched in a video by thunderf00t (another real scientist) that trees have little overall impact on CO2 levels because all the CO2 they remove from the atmosphere, they eventually release once they die. (That being a rebutal to TeamTrees wasting $20)

Individual trees being planted or dying make little long-term impact, but de/forestation (that is, reallocating land to/from being forested) does. The more land is forested on a long-term basis, the better for CO2 levels.

Zeus posted...

What about all the earthquakes and tsunamis? Surely those are caused by global warming?!

In the absence of any sort of precedent to call on, it appears Zeus has resorted to flagrant non sequitur to sate his desperate addiction to whatboutism. How sad.

---

Yellow posted...

I watched in a video by thunderf00t (another real scientist) that trees have little overall impact on CO2 levels because all the CO2 they remove from the atmosphere, they eventually release once they die.

Not if you make furniture from them. You could also dump the stuff in the sea where it won't resurface for thousands of years.

The thing about renewables is that there is a cycle; material that enters the atmosphere will be absorbed, and that which absorbs re-enters the atmosphere. Renewables are like pouring water back and forth between cups and fossil fuels are like adding water to the cups until they overflow. If we get more cups then we can keep swapping around the water without a spill.
---

But the whole argument breaks down when you realize 20M planted trees would offset the USA's CO2 footprint by less than a day

It's generally used as a copout from fuel industries to improve their public image.
https://phys.org/news/2019-09-tree-planting-offset-carbon-emissions-cure-all.html

---

That's not really relevant, it's still increasing the storage volume. As is half of our production is naturally sequestered, it's not hard to half output by usage or efficiency.
---

Yellow posted...

If for some reason you listen to everything the Swedish guy with Tourette's says, than yes.

If you listen to the scientific community, then no.

WHHHHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOSH.
---