mart?n

bad for the economy

[mart?n @martinsc36]

@lavitalenta What's the most favorite?

[mart?n @martinsc36]

@DraperOr @PatriciaNPino not to the billionaires then

[mart?n @martinsc36]

@Hemiunu2021 @TihoNemec @Irgendwer54321 @George12060019 https://t.co/VluV2V42WC

[C e i s t @Ceist8]

1/5

This faked graph is from the crank blog of non-scientist Nasif Nahle who has zero expertise in paleoclimate and has never published ANY research papers at all.

As the original blog URL now leads to a Thai gambling website, this is an archived copy:

https://t.co/Yt4Zun3G8A

[mart?n @martinsc36]

@Veritatem2021 @alangnixon Theres evidence that CO2 has a warming effect and theres evidence that humans are responsible for all of the atmospheric increase in CO2.
What there is no evidence for is that any natural variable is the cause for the current warming.

[mart?n @martinsc36]

@BillWoolf9 @alangnixon @Veritatem2021 But its enough for plants to live on?

[mart?n @martinsc36]

@DaveRiddle42071 @wsourdeau @mz6wns8zhx @JunkScience "~1.6% of the 3% of human emissions"
Sorry but this statement alone is prove for your ignorance.
Humans are responsible for all (100%) net-emissions.
The 3% number is referring to gross -emissions which are not relevant.

[mart?n @martinsc36]

@gloefflmann gut auf den Punkt gebracht

[mart?n @martinsc36]

@JimFish56837379 @scotsrenewables @TonyClimate

[mart?n @martinsc36]

@crianza @RainerReelfs Das Wissensdefizit liegt eher bei denen, die nicht verstanden haben was er damit meint.

[mart?n @martinsc36]

@dougbarracuda @Nasty1Reborn @VincentCrypt46 @8Notables What is bad isnt the amount of CO2 itself but the current rate of its increase.
A slow increase to 0.1% for example would propably be no problem(maybe even beneficial)if nature and humanity had enough time to adapt.
In the past big changes in CO2 levels took thousands of years.

[mart?n @martinsc36]

@adrian_smits @_ClimateCraze congratz on being wrong for 20 years

[mart?n @martinsc36]

@Kleeberg_m Meine Güte, das ist offensichtlich Satire. Wie kann man das nicht erkennen??

[mart?n @martinsc36]

@IRONSal1 @latimeralder

[mart?n @martinsc36]

@IRONSal1 @latimeralder Dann, that's crazy! Next you gonna tell me that temperatures drop at night??

[mart?n @martinsc36]

@IRONSal1 @latimeralder nonsensical

[mart?n @martinsc36]

@IRONSal1 @latimeralder Wow, you really think small number = small effect.
Can't argue with that kind of stupidity.

[mart?n @martinsc36]

@IRONSal1 @latimeralder What's the difference between 1000ppm and 0.1%?

[mart?n @martinsc36]

@IRONSal1 @latimeralder I'm not saying that more CO2 doesn't lead to more plants.
But how is increasing the amount of a major greenhouse by 50% only a small contribution?

[mart?n @martinsc36]

@IRONSal1 @latimeralder For an estimate we can look at the amount of CO2 humans put into the atmosphere. In the last 150 years its ~2400Gt total of which ~1450 got sequestered by nature. The remaining ~950Gt is equivalent to ~120ppm (1ppm ~~ 7.8Gt).