Comments by "Jiri Slavicek" (@jirislavicek9954) on "PragerU"
channel.
-
31
-
6
-
6
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@GrayDogNowIDK The only scientific evidence is that CO2, methane, water vapor etc. cause the greenhouse effect, that means absorb some heat radiation from the Earth's surface and refect it back to it. Same principle as the glass in a greenhouse. Some gasses are more potent than others (vapour and methane trap more heat than CO2). Without this effect (+ energy storage in water) life on Earth wouldn't be possible.
Now the CO2 concentration is raising due to human activity, mostly burning fossil fuels, it's like adding a thicker glass to your greenhouse. It went from about 280 ppm in pre-industrial era to about 400 ppm today, that's raise from 0.028 to 0.04%. That doesn't looks so scary anymore. But the relation between CO2 concentration and temperature is not linear, like the politicians want you to believe, if you double or quadruple the concentration the effect doesn't get twice or four times stronger.
We certainly don't live in any "climate emergency " as how the powerful lobbies try to convince you. The IPCC is a political organisation that created a multi-trillion climate change business using hysteria and crooked science based on feelings and models rather than facts. It is the greatest scam in history. Without this hysteria there wouldn't be a lucrative business with carbon permissions, sales of technologies "fighting " climate change. It also serves as a powerful tool to curb traditional industrial lobbies and prevent poor countries from development and thus making the richer even more rich.
I think fossil fuels should and will be eventually replaced by cleaner energy sources, cleaner in terms of traditional pollutants like nitrous oxides, solid particles, SO2 and heavy metals, etc. They are the major cause of respiratory diseases, cancer etc. It is also good idea to leave some sources for future generations.
But just from the actions of the "green" lobby you can judge that environment is not their priority, rather power, influence and profit. Otherwise they wouldn't be so heavily opposed to nuclear energy, statistically the safest and cleanest source of energy, and support biofuels, the least environmentally friendly source of energy, at least at large scale (massive land use, extreme inefficiency, destruction of habitat).
The climate change hysteria doesn't help the planet the slightest. It does quite the opposite by consuming vast amounts of money that could be otherwise used to fight more pressing environmental problems.
1. Overfishing and plundering of oceans.
2. Loss of habitat, deforestation, loss of biodiversity, poaching
3. Desertification and poor water management, overuse of water reserves, water pollution.
4. Overuse of agro chemicals and chemicals in general, air pollution
5. Overpopulation - the biggest and the most fundamental environmental problem. But good luck with trying to sort that!
There's a really good book about this topic, Marc Morano's Politically incorrect guide to climate change. It's a fact based book showing us like the green lobby is misleading the general public. Nothing trumpian.
Another great book is Ben Goldacre's Bad science. It's not about climate, it's about how pharmaceutical industry is twisting science to it's benefit. Basically that not everything that looks like a science is actual science. Both on Audible audiobooks. If you don't like you can return them.
By the way, the sea levels rose between 1900 and today by about 2 millimetres! That shows you the scale of this "emergency." The difference is only measurable with highly specialised equipment (because of waves, tide, continent drift, rising and subduction, etc.)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1