From Newsgroup: alt.atheism

Paul Aubrin <paul.aubrin@invalid.org> wrote:

Le 20/02/2026 a 13:11, Malte Runz a ocrita:

Trying to catch up, I see. But posting a link to an article is trivial
if you don't use it to back up your statements:

"The claim is that the environment needs all of our pollution in order
to thrive!"

Who claimed that?

Waste, trash, garbage for some living things can be useful for others. Exemple : mushrooms grow on manure.
Every animal exhales carbon dioxide as a waste of internal energy production, but it is the only source of carbon atoms for plants.

It never occurs to me that people would see a cited video or ANY
media piece as anything other than a starting point...

So, why didn't you take the time to find a scientific paper and
address that, instead of posting a link to a kid on Facebook?

Why do you think that no idea is worth saying except if it has been published in an academic paper ? The scientific method consists to first observe and take note, then imagine hypothesis and discuss them, then confront them with observations, then, eventually write and publish
them. When you work, you apply the same kind of process, but never
publish your production, you make things and sell them.

Why did you snip alt.atheism?
--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.atheism

On Fri, 20 Feb 2026 14:04:48 +0100, Paul Aubrin
<paul.aubrin@invalid.org> wrote:

Le 20/02/2026 a 13:19, Malte Runz a ocrita:

... With higher concentrations, plants would be thriving, particularly
in semi-arid zones.

A very simplistic way of looking at things. The increased CO2
concentrations have other effects that are changing the climate in
ways that outweigh any positive effects it might have on plant growth
in certain regions.

Warmer climates are better for plants, animals, humans, bacteria... >everything. All historians will agree with that.

Historians? How about this instead: https://www.carbonbrief.org/explainer-will-rising-temperatures-mean-more-lives-are-saved-than-lost/

"Higher temperatures and longer heatwaves will push more of us beyond
our tolerance limits, leading to a rise in the number of deaths from heat-related illnesses, scientists say.

But youAll sometimes see it argued in parts of the media that the
number of lives saved each year as winters get warmer will outweigh
these extra deaths caused by heat-exposure.

A new study strongly counters this view, however.

The research, published today in the journal Environmental Research
Letters, says we shouldnAt expect a substantial drop in winter deaths
after all, and that rising temperatures will have an overwhelmingly
negative impact on death rates. ..."

One of many scientific reports that contradict all your imagined
historians.

My opinion is that the nice effects of carbon dioxide outweigh largely >negative effects. Of course, pollution (real pollution) is bad and
should be avoided.

High amounts of CO2 being pumped into the atmosphere is an example of
"real pollution".
--
Malte Runz
--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.atheism

On 3/1/2026 6:02 AM, Malte Runz wrote:

On Fri, 20 Feb 2026 14:04:48 +0100, Paul Aubrin
<paul.aubrin@invalid.org> wrote:

Le 20/02/2026 |a 13:19, Malte Runz a |-crit-a:

... With higher concentrations, plants would be thriving, particularly >>>> in semi-arid zones.

A very simplistic way of looking at things. The increased CO2
concentrations have other effects that are changing the climate in
ways that outweigh any positive effects it might have on plant growth
in certain regions.

Warmer climates are better for plants, animals, humans, bacteria...
everything. All historians will agree with that.

Historians? How about this instead: https://www.carbonbrief.org/explainer-will-rising-temperatures-mean-more-lives-are-saved-than-lost/

"Higher temperatures and longer heatwaves will push more of us beyond
our tolerance limits, leading to a rise in the number of deaths from heat-related illnesses, scientists say.

But yourCOll sometimes see it argued in parts of the media that the
number of lives saved each year as winters get warmer will outweigh
these extra deaths caused by heat-exposure.

A new study strongly counters this view, however.

The research, published today in the journal Environmental Research
Letters, says we shouldnrCOt expect a substantial drop in winter deaths
after all, and that rising temperatures will have an overwhelmingly
negative impact on death rates. ..."

One of many scientific reports that contradict all your imagined
historians.

My opinion is that the nice effects of carbon dioxide outweigh largely
negative effects. Of course, pollution (real pollution) is bad and
should be avoided.

High amounts of CO2 being pumped into the atmosphere is an example of
"real pollution".

I am still trying to figure out what, exactly, these climate skeptics
and/or deniers want. With Trump, they've gotten a World with
significantly more fossil fuel use for decades to come. Ultimately, all
of us, without any exceptions whatsoever, will have to cope with what
reality brings.

Dawn
--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.atheism

On Sun, 1 Mar 2026 12:31:09 -0600, Dawn Flood
<Dawn.Belle.Flood@gmail.com> wrote:

On 3/1/2026 6:02 AM, Malte Runz wrote:

On Fri, 20 Feb 2026 14:04:48 +0100, Paul Aubrin

<snip>

My opinion is that the nice effects of carbon dioxide outweigh largely
negative effects. Of course, pollution (real pollution) is bad and
should be avoided.

High amounts of CO2 being pumped into the atmosphere is an example of
"real pollution".

I am still trying to figure out what, exactly, these climate skeptics
and/or deniers want.

They want laissez-faire capitalism, where they don't have to do
anything or take action about anything that gets in the way of making
money.

With Trump, they've gotten a World with
significantly more fossil fuel use for decades to come. Ultimately, all
of us, without any exceptions whatsoever, will have to cope with what >reality brings.

Dawn

--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.atheism

Dawn Flood wrote:

On 3/1/2026 6:02 AM, Malte Runz wrote:

On Fri, 20 Feb 2026 14:04:48 +0100, Paul Aubrin
<paul.aubrin@invalid.org> wrote:

Le 20/02/2026 |a 13:19, Malte Runz a |-crit-a:

... With higher concentrations, plants would be thriving, particularly >>>>> in semi-arid zones.

A very simplistic way of looking at things. The increased CO2
concentrations have other effects that are changing the climate in
ways that outweigh any positive effects it might have on plant growth
in certain regions.

Warmer climates are better for plants, animals, humans, bacteria...
everything. All historians will agree with that.

Historians? How about this instead:
https://www.carbonbrief.org/explainer-will-rising-temperatures-mean-more-lives-are-saved-than-lost/


"Higher temperatures and longer heatwaves will push more of us beyond
our tolerance limits, leading to a rise in the number of deaths from
heat-related illnesses, scientists say.

But yourCOll-a sometimes see it argued in-a parts of the-a media that the
number of lives saved each year as winters get warmer will outweigh
these extra deaths caused by heat-exposure.

A new study strongly counters this view, however.

The research, published today in the journal Environmental Research
Letters, says we shouldnrCOt expect a substantial drop in winter deaths
after all, and that rising temperatures will have an overwhelmingly
negative impact on death rates. ..."

One of many scientific reports that contradict all your imagined
historians.

My opinion is that the nice effects of carbon dioxide outweigh largely
negative effects. Of course, pollution (real pollution) is bad and
should be avoided.

High amounts of CO2 being pumped into the atmosphere is an example of
"real pollution".

I am still trying to figure out what, exactly, these climate skeptics
and/or deniers want.-a With Trump, they've gotten a World with
significantly more fossil fuel use for decades to come.-a Ultimately, all
of us, without any exceptions whatsoever, will have to cope with what reality brings.

Dawn

no we won't we'll be dead
--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.atheism

Malte Runz wrote:

Historians? How about this instead: https://www.carbonbrief.org/explainer-will-rising-temperatures-mean-more-lives-are-saved-than-lost/

"Higher temperatures and longer heatwaves will push more of us beyond
our tolerance limits, leading to a rise in the number of deaths from heat-related illnesses, scientists say.

So it's a story about something that literally never happened. The story
is 11 years old and is NOT reporting information, it's reporting
something that never happens, and even claims WILL NOT happen until 2080
or later...

Odd that you should mistaken this for "Science."

Here. Let's quote this filthy piece of propaganda you cited:

"Global temperature has risen by 0.85C over the industrial period"

Now let's quote Google A.I. here:

"When Vikings settled Greenland around 985 CE, the climate in the
southern, inhabited regions was roughly 1.5 C (2.7 F) warmer"

So as of 2015, after a century and a half of "Oh my God! Gwobull
Warbling," with human activity super heating the planet, we barely
RECOVERED a third of the warmth LOST during "The Little Ice Age."

It's 1.5 C _Colder_ right now than when the Vikings landed in
Greenland!

A REASONABLE person can look at this fact and conclude that human
activity has COOLED the planet -- not warmed it but COOLED it --
because a reasonable person could reasonable conclude that AFTER
THE LITTLE ICE AGE ENDED the planet would return to the natural
highs the climate was seeing. But it did not.

Why didn't the earth heat up like it should have? Mostly because of
sulfur...

https://youtu.be/8q4my9Zi5d8?si=xfnAhAK57-BhVdeE

Science is consistent. Your mental illness is not.

Science is consistent. I chose this video because it's but HISTORY,
and everything he says here -- his scientific facts -- applies to
Gwobull Warbling bullshit.

Sulfur. Sulfur COOLS the atmosphere. And humans have been gushing
sulfur into the atmosphere throughout the industrial revolution and
beyond.

But yourCOll sometimes see it argued in parts of the media that the
number of lives saved each year as winters get warmer will outweigh
these extra deaths caused by heat-exposure.

A new study strongly counters this view, however.

The research, published today in the journal Environmental Research
Letters, says we shouldnrCOt expect a substantial drop in winter deaths
after all, and that rising temperatures will have an overwhelmingly
negative impact on death rates. ..."

One of many scientific reports that contradict all your imagined
historians.

My opinion is that the nice effects of carbon dioxide outweigh largely
negative effects. Of course, pollution (real pollution) is bad and
should be avoided.

High amounts of CO2 being pumped into the atmosphere is an example of
"real pollution".

--
https://jtem.tumblr.com/
--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.atheism

On 3/1/26 1:31 PM, Dawn Flood wrote:

I am still trying to figure out what, exactly, these climate skeptics and/or deniers want.

There's literally nobody denying the existence of a climate, nor is
anyone so much as skeptical that a climate exists. So, as far as
what people want, let's start with you getting properly diagnosed
and treated...

Here. I just posted this to your alter:

https://youtu.be/8q4my9Zi5d8?si=xfnAhAK57-BhVdeE


Fossil fuels are the source of the sulfur humanity has been
pumping into the atmosphere. Sure, we pail in comparison to even
a single large volcano but, we've been pumping sulfur into the
air since the Industrial Revolution began. This is why it's so
cold right now. This is why the planet NEVER recovered all the
warmth lost during The Little Ice Age: Human activity is keeping
it from warming up too much, too fast.
--
https://jtem.tumblr.com/
--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.atheism

On 3/1/2026 11:52 PM, JTEM wrote:

On 3/1/26 1:31 PM, Dawn Flood wrote:

I am still trying to figure out what, exactly, these climate skeptics
and/or deniers want.

There's literally nobody denying the existence of a climate, nor is
anyone so much as skeptical that a climate exists. So, as far as
what people want, let's start with you getting properly diagnosed
and treated...

Here. I just posted this to your alter:

https://youtu.be/8q4my9Zi5d8?si=xfnAhAK57-BhVdeE

Fossil fuels are the source of the sulfur humanity has been
pumping into the atmosphere. Sure, we pail in comparison to even
a single large volcano but, we've been pumping sulfur into the
air since the Industrial Revolution began. This is why it's so
cold right now. This is why the planet NEVER recovered all the
warmth lost during The Little Ice Age:-a Human activity is keeping
it from warming up too much, too fast.

You claimed that Eternal September banned you, but yet, you continue to
post??

By the way, have you tried Googling "atmospheric sulfur
concentrations"?? Try it!
--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.atheism

On Mon, 2 Mar 2026 00:48:27 -0500, JTEM <jtem01@gmail.com> wrote:

Malte Runz wrote:

Historians? How about this instead:
https://www.carbonbrief.org/explainer-will-rising-temperatures-mean-more-lives-are-saved-than-lost/

"Higher temperatures and longer heatwaves will push more of us beyond
our tolerance limits, leading to a rise in the number of deaths from
heat-related illnesses, scientists say.

So it's a story about something that literally never happened. ...

https://tinyurl.com/26hwm4v9
"Rising heat kills one person a minute worldwide, major report reveals

Biggest analysis of its kind finds millions are dying each year from
combined effects of failure to tackle climate crisis

Rising global heat is now killing one person a minute around the
world, a major report on the health impact of the climate crisis has
revealed.

It says the worldAs addiction to fossil fuels also causes toxic air
pollution, wildfires and the spread of diseases such as dengue fever,
and millions each year are dying owing to the failure to tackle global
heating.

... The story
is 11 years old and is NOT reporting information, it's reporting
something that never happens, and even claims WILL NOT happen until 2080
or later...

But, it did happen in the 2020's, and it's only going to get worse.

Odd that you should mistaken this for "Science."

https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/climate-change-heat-and-health "The number of people exposed to extreme heat is growing exponentially
due to climate change in all world regions. Heat-related mortality for
people over 65 years of age increased by approximately 85% between
2000u2004 and 2017u2021"

https://tinyurl.com/48jhaymu
"Climate change tripled heat-related deaths in early summer European
heatwave"

https://tinyurl.com/4tckrpv5
"30 October 2025
Annual heat-related deaths surge to 546 000 in the last decade due to
climate change
Source(s): Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research

New global findings in the 9th annual indicator report of the Lancet
Countdown on Health and Climate Change reveal that the continued
dependence on fossil fuels and limited progress in climate adaptation
are affecting peopleAs health, livelihoods, and contributing to a rise
in heat-related deaths."

Here. Let's quote this filthy piece of propaganda you cited:

"Global temperature has risen by 0.85C over the industrial period"

Now let's quote Google A.I. here:

You can do better than that, surely.

"When Vikings settled Greenland around 985 CE, the climate in the
southern, inhabited regions was roughly 1.5 C (2.7 F) warmer"

So as of 2015, after a century and a half of "Oh my God! Gwobull
Warbling," with human activity super heating the planet, we barely
RECOVERED a third of the warmth LOST during "The Little Ice Age."

It's 1.5 C _Colder_ right now than when the Vikings landed in
Greenland!

"Global warming", a now obsolete term, by the way, never predicted
that every spot on Earth got warmer.

A REASONABLE person can look at this fact and conclude that human
activity has COOLED the planet -- not warmed it but COOLED it --

You're not a reasonable person if you make that claim based on a few
isolated and carefully cherry picked data points.

because a reasonable person could reasonable conclude that AFTER
THE LITTLE ICE AGE ENDED the planet would return to the natural
highs the climate was seeing. But it did not.

There is no "natural" temperature the climate will return to after

Why didn't the earth heat up like it should have? Mostly because of >sulfur...

https://youtu.be/8q4my9Zi5d8?si=xfnAhAK57-BhVdeE

A YouTube video! Yes, volcanic eruptions can impact the climate. The
gases, like sulfur dioxide can have a short term cooling effect
(before it turns into acid rain), and carbon dioxide will cause
warming. You are not telling me anything I didn't already know.

Science is consistent. Your mental illness is not.

Not buying the fossil fuel industry's propaganda, about high levels of
CO2 being harmless, is not a sign of mental illness.

Science is consistent. I chose this video because it's but HISTORY,
and everything he says here -- his scientific facts -- applies to
Gwobull Warbling bullshit.

Sulfur. Sulfur COOLS the atmosphere. ...

CO2 warms the atmosphere. Prove me wrong. And although a lot of
youtubers do great work, why don't you find a peer reviewed,
scientific paper from a reputable scientific institution.

'They're all working for the Deep State!!!!' Or what?

... And humans have been gushing
sulfur into the atmosphere throughout the industrial revolution and
beyond.

Is that a good thing in your opinion? We need more acid rain, an
increase of other sulfur oxides that can harm plants and fuck up our
lungs?

But youAll sometimes see it argued in parts of the media ...

Why don't you show me who argues that?
'Do your own research!' Right?

... that the

number of lives saved each year as winters get warmer will outweigh
these extra deaths caused by heat-exposure.

Extra deaths caused by heat-exposure? Wait a minute...

[Scrolling to the top]

Yup!

[copy and paste]

***

"Higher temperatures and longer heatwaves will push more of us beyond
our tolerance limits, leading to a rise in the number of deaths from
heat-related illnesses, scientists say.

So it's a story about something that literally never happened.

***
Here you are claiming that heat-related deaths "literally never
happened".

And I'm the one with mental problems?
--
Malte Runz
--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2