Welcome • User Guide
ToS • Privacy • Canary
Donate • Bugs • License

©2025 Poal.co

Everything is fake and bull shit. It is your job to see it and tell others.

Everything is fake and bull shit. It is your job to see it and tell others.

(post is archived)

[–] • 1 pt

So, for example, if I ask someone how many neutrinos are released when U235 is split in a fission reaction it means that fission is fake and bullshit if they don't know?

[–] [deleted] • 6 pts

Are they a nuclear physicist?

[–] • -1 pt

Doesn't matter. That's the thing about facts: it doesn't matter whether anyone knows about them or not, they're still facts. Fission is a real thing whether a nuclear physicist knows about it or not.

[–] [deleted] • 5 pts

That doesn't mean human caused global warming is real and the activist who make that claim not understanding the basic science they claim proves this doesn't help their cause.

[–] • 0 pt

You doubled down. Which was fuking retarded.

Life lesson. If you make a statement which is so easily refuted you must accept that your argument was flawed.

Adapt and grow

[–] • 3 pts

So your argument is, if that person is telling you too many neutrinos are released when U235 is split and we need to stop it. And then they say the way we do that is criple the economy, tax people and send it to some fund in Europe, and prevent people from eating meat. A logicial question to that response is wow how many neutrinos is too much? And they say "I don't know". So you say how many are released when U235 is split and again they say "I'm not a scientist I don't know". Are you really going to take them seriously?

[–] • 0 pt

Your analogy is faulty. The question wasn't "how much CO2 in the atmosphere is too much." The question was "do you know much CO2 there is in the atmosphere."

[–] • 0 pt

It's not my analogy it's OPs. Secondly, it's spot on. Thirdly to address your statement specifically I said this, "So you say how many are released when U235 is split and again they say "I'm not a scientist I don't know"."

[–] • 0 pt

It’s just exposing one part of the huge lie which is global warming. Don’t be a faggot. That’s a highly specific thing. If you were these faggots who care so much about CO2 emissions you’d know something basic like the ratio considering that’s the crucial metric they’re using. Everyone is retarded.

[–] • 0 pt

What an "activist" knows has nothing to do with the huge lie. It's completely irrelevant.

[–] • 0 pt

That is an excellent logical response.

[–] • 0 pt (edited )

What you're arguing is that Nuclear physicists are aware of a problem that they can't communicate and need to outsource out (to what are actually volunteers) to people that are Professional Loud Mouths to spread the word and make our lives hell.
Edit: Without actually informing us, mind you.

[–] • 0 pt

I'm arguing no such thing. I'm arguing that a person's knowledge of x has no bearing on the truth of x.

[–] • 0 pt

It's a world stage debate, right So challenging the speaker is a means to drive the ball forward for that side.
The burden of proof is on these people trying to ruin our lives.
If all they have to offer us is people that are experts in how to manipulate popular opinion, then it must not be that serious.

[–] • 0 pt

Well if you asked the person who is the expert in the matter and asking you to give up your finances saying it is a problem, they damn well better know.

[–] • 0 pt

Well if you asked the person who is the expert in the matter and asking you to give up your finances saying it is a problem, they damn well better know.

Well then, let's see someone try this on a climatologist instead of some retarded activist.

[–] • 0 pt

That's the point. Don't go on the media circuit claiming gloom and doom and how everyone must change to fit your narrative, but then know nothing about what you are talking about.

[–] • 1 pt

If we allow CO2 levels to drop much lower it will cause an extinction event. It would destroy plants much as sugar has destroyed cognitive function of the climate activists and supporters.

[–] • 1 pt (edited )

If we allow CO2 levels to drop

ugh... here's a chart of historical CO2 levels, have a wild guess what's likely to happen in the next 50 years...

do you really think we are going to see any sudden drops in that fucking line?

let's go back a bit

[–] • 1 pt

Those charts are extremely dishonest and deceiving.

They are computer models and all are political and the variation is immense and it's 500 years in the future where we may reach half the level of the triassic.

But how about climate models start being accurate before we start believing them?

Sounds reasonable.

How about we take away financial reward for studies proving mm climate change? Remove conflict of interest is rational.

And finally. Let's get peer reviewed proof that politicians can stagnate global climate before destroying our liberty and prosperity in their name.

But we all know no such proof exists or ever will

[–] • 2 pts

Accurate models, ha. Ain’t gonna happen. Even the best models use constants where variables ought to be. In the short term the effect is negligible, but compound errors are a hell of a thing.

[–] • 1 pt

Wait, I thought the models were only good for 12 years, when the entire northern seaboard was devastated in 2007. Good job people, crisis averted, now pack it up and go home.

[–] • -1 pt

They are computer models and all are political

we measure historical CO2 by drilling core samples out of ice, politics has nothing to do with it

But how about climate models start being accurate before we start believing them?

how about we plan for the extinction level event first, and then worry about the degree of precision later?

How about we take away financial reward for studies proving mm climate change?

OK, but first take away the financial reward for oil companies continuing to accelerate the issue. I guarantee you they have more money and political power

Let's get peer reviewed proof that politicians can stagnate global climate before destroying our liberty and prosperity in their name

Where did you get the idea that it's us versus the politicians? it's us versus the oil companies who are lobbying the politicians to kick the can down the road till 2050. "peer reviewed proof", but you just said all research was biased? (without any proof of that either)

[–] [deleted] • 0 pt

Their agenda will be forced no matter how many flaws of theirs you point out. It's got a set date to go in full swing.....they are just preprogramming us for when they do it. They want control and depopulation.

What's the next climate emergency going to be about? COW FARTS. No beef for you.

[–] • -2 pt

I'm so bored of retards on the Right posting stuff like this because they make us all look like fucking morons.

"I know nothing about Chemistry or Atmospheric Science, but 0.04% sounds really small and therefore can't do anything... herpy derp"

0.4% of alcohol will kill you, so a tiny amount of gas that absorbs IR is likely to be the main thing that regulates Earth temperature

Venus is about 870 F (470 C) because its atmosphere is 96.5 percent carbon dioxide.

Stay in school kids

[–] • 3 pts

I've heard that 0.04% of delousing agent is enough to kill 6 millions.

[–] • 0 pt

I calculate it as 0.0001% Zyklon B gas concentration

[–] • 1 pt

h2o absorbs almost the same wavelengths as co2 - compared to the amount of water in the atmosphere 0.04% sounds really small.

[–] • 0 pt

I think the issue is that water vapour coverage is not uniform over the whole earth, which is where CO2 has its effect

[–] • 0 pt

It's difficult to compare because while there is maybe 50 times as much water than co2 in the first 10 kilometers, there is no water above 20 but co2 doesn't wane until 80 km. Tim would say it's complicated. As far as I've seen the UN sponsored researchers avoid that topic.

[–] • 1 pt (edited )

Hi reddit cvnt.

Venus doesn't have a feedback loop. Earth does. Called plants.

On earth our greenhouse gas isn't co2. It's water vapor. Unlike venus.

So many things wrong with your reddit copy and paste but instead if debunking you. Just fuk off back to your pedo primer site

[–] • 1 pt

Plants don’t do shit compared to plankton, the ocean is the real mvp.

[–] • -1 pt

Venus doesn't have a feedback loop. Earth does. Called plants.

we did have those, we call it deforestation now, good luck with your loop stability if you have a variable approaching zero.

On earth our greenhouse gas isn't co2. It's water vapor. Unlike venus.

it's both, the example was merely to illustrate that CO2 traps heat

[–] • 2 pts

Fuk off with deforestation lies. Humans plant blions of trees every year. And btw trees only carbon sink if they are new forests.

The world is covered in forests. And if not forest its grassland which is another massive carbon sink.

England urban land area is .6%. German wild ancient forest is 30% of land. Amazon is 82% of its 500 year old self.

Environmentalism is a damned liars religion peddling fear and money grafting