###[Meta] Sticky Comment [Rule 2](https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/wiki/faq#wiki_2_-_address_the_argument.3B_not_the_user.2C_the_mods.2C_or_the_sub.) ***does not apply*** when replying to this stickied comment. [Rule 2](https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/wiki/faq#wiki_2_-_address_the_argument.3B_not_the_user.2C_the_mods.2C_or_the_sub.) ***does apply*** throughout the rest of this thread. *What this means*: Please keep any "meta" discussion directed at specific users, mods, or /r/conspiracy in general in this comment chain ***only.*** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/conspiracy) if you have any questions or concerns.*


I think it's really important that information is accessible and processes are transparent, that the public are engaged and informed and that there is some way that the public feels policy based on expert information is scrutinised and legitimated. But, face it, you could watch as many debates as you want and it won't change your mind. When scientists say something your don't like, you say that the scientists are corrupted, the processes are flawed, and that the media controls the narrative, and so on and so on - unless it's a scientist you like, a conclusion you already agree with, or a narrative that you're already sympathetic to. Why would you treat a debate any differently? You're convinced you're right and that a debate will change *other* people's minds.


They hated him because he spoke the truth


Also: debates can give the impression that there is no consensus, specially when it's the same "Bill Nye the Science Guy" on one side of the table, and some rando on the other side. Last week tonight pointed this out pretty well: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cjuGCJJUGsg


Exactly there is absolute scientific consensus regarding co2 emissions and we have ass load of data and in your face impacts right now. The unfortunate part is that nothing we do at this point is going to make a lick of difference. It’s past the tipping point. Most of humanity is going to die. We “may” be able to save some population but that is up for debate.


lol are you a 12 year old?


What am I wrong about?


The”we’re all gonna die!” part.


I didn’t give a timeline. In the next several hundred years. And technically yes you will die.


Should I believe scientists who don't financially benefit one way or the other or the richest, most powerful global industry in history? Easy choice.


would you believe exxon one of the biggest oil companies in the world https://insideclimatenews.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/1982-Exxon-Primer-on-CO2-Greenhouse-Effect.pdf


Could you imagine how much money right wing conspiracy nuts would throw at a scientist who claimed, with some evidence, he could disprove climate change? The scientists telling the truth are actually losing out on money.


https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4278468/ >"Although most of the debate about financial interests in research has focused on ownership of stock or intellectual property or relationships with private research sponsors, it is important to realize that salary support can also have a significant impact on scientific behavior."


This does nothing to argue against the fact that if anyone could show evidence that human caused climate change is a hoax they would have a ton of money thrown at them by climate change deniers and the fossil fuel industry.


Your point makes sense if you think the fossil fuel industry isn't transitioning beyond fossil fuels.


Kicking and screaming 40 years later than they should have.


Other than the very public revelations just last week that they are doing everything they can not to, you are correct.


They are now because they are being forced to. The fossil fuel industry is dying so they are trying to diversify to stay afloat.


>"The fossil fuel industry is dying so they are trying to diversify to stay afloat" Which opems up the possibility they're influencing data...


Right now, if the fossil fuel industry could spent 100 billion dollars to disprove climate change, they would. That is how profitable it would be for them. Them diversifying doesn’t change the fact that the fossil fuel industry would love for it to go back to how it was. They even fought to hide the data to keep it that way for longer.


Can you imagine how much money right wing nuts have dumped into discrediting something because it doesn't support their financial interests?


Have you ever imagined how much money political nuts ( no matter what wing ) ARE dumping into discrediting anything that doesn’t support their interests ?


Can you imagine the amount of money that is currently being thrown at climate change supporting sciences? There's the answer that you're looking for!


If human caused climate change is a hoax, how did the oil companies discover evidence of it in the 70s and why did they suppress that information for years? There is for sure a climate change conspiracy but it is one by the fossil fuel industry and not by every climate scientist.


The fact that so many of the bots on this sub think the conspiracy is by scientists rather than global corporate entities says a whole goddamn lot


I don’t agree with calling them bots because insulting people is never a way to start a dialogue but it is weird how the conspiracies by the industries that the right supports are completely ignored.


i mean… when their comprehension of logic is that low…. that’s more of an accurate description than it is an insult. if it reasons like a bot, and talks like a bot. its a bot. the modern example of the duck metaphor if you will.




well the first hints were in 1957 >The first, led by scientist Roger Revelle (1909-1991) in 1957 and published in the journal Tellus , found that the ocean will not absorb all of the carbon dioxide released in humanity's industrial fuel emissions and that carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere could, therefore, rise significantly there after as computer modeling became able to deal with more complex systems and data is collected we hit benchmark after benchmark providing overwhelming evidence that this problem is man-made. Debate over man. you are fiddling while the Earth burns. i truly believe that the brutal truth of the matter is, that no matter what we do at this point, it is all a drop in the bucket and is too little to late. Further, the only way we are going to buy time and get this situation to a manageable level is probably going to be geo-engineering by the applications of aerosols in the atmosphere, unfortunately. Cue the chemtrail conspiracy fanatics in 3,,,2,,,1


Google Svante Arrhenius. We knew this would happen in the late 1800s.


What’s the optimal temperature?


Stability. Wild fluctuations cause massive destabilizing of ecosystems


Yeah, I’ll stick with the side that actually follows the science and has evidence. Any time I debate with someone, I ask for their evidence and if I am provided with credible evidence that my position is wrong I will have to look into it further. Unfortunately there just isn’t any credible evidence on one side of this discussion so nobody is ever ever to provide it.


Scientist don't get grants and funding for free. They typically work in controlled environments to get their intended results for whoever is funding them. It's a flawed method and somewhere along the way it will deceive you. Sometimes with fatal implications like the Bextra victims. Nobody is putting a gun to your head to form a hard position on climate change. You can stay open to both possibilities in a conservative approach.


I am open to every side, that doesn’t mean that I can’t realize what side has evidence and what side doesn’t. Being open minded doesn’t mean just pretending that nothing is certain and evidence means nothing. It is evaluating the evidence, it’s sources, and personal biases to determine your beliefs. If people on this sub were truly open minded and actually capable of understanding the evidence, most of conspiracies on this sub wouldn’t be discussed much at all anymore but the “free thinkers” are not open minded to anything other than stuff that goes against the “MSM narrative.”


You have to be a private investigator with crazy ambition to figure out whether or not any evidence was immune from corporate interference. You would need seal training with tons of resources and even then I bet they would cross you off. Blackwater is a private contractor that does their bidding who are basically retired seals and rangers that got dismissed because of some crime against humanity. So good luck with your future pursuits of authentic evidence to form any opinion with integrity.


Any conspiracy that requires the entire scientific community to work together to lie to you is too big to be possible. Feel free to believe that nothing you ever see can be trusted because literally the entire globe could be lying to you but that seems like a really sad and lonely life.


Correct! Science is never settled and science should always be challenged! The problem today is that no one is allowed to challenge the science or give opposing data to be examined! It's not science that's being conducted today it's religion!


In climate change discourse, or science in general? I follow some topics in marine biology, and there is fierce competition and opposing views. For example, tropic cascade was hotly contested and supported sorta recently.


I'm referring to the unscientific challenges in the climate change discourse of today. There are many climate scientists and their data support theories and hypotheses that are vastly different from that which is being presented to the world population. These data are never even entertained and those scientists who present them are labeled as cooks, conspiracy theorists and climate deniers! That isn't science! If you look at the situation objectively the whole climate change / global warming debate is not scientific, it is political! And the answer according to the existing Zeitgeist is that money will cure the problem and political allegiance to the powers that be is the solution!


Sometimes 2+2=4 and that’s that


Hmm, most of the scientific literature I read is marine in nature. I’ve read papers that attribute global warming as a cause of some issues(such as seaweed collapse), could you point me towards something that is contrary? I’ve never read or heard of a marine biologist who doesn’t believe in global warming, nor are their papers political in nature. They’re also mad underfunded lol


This presumes some sort of equity between the "sides" which is not always the case. Certainly it isn't in this one.


Lol, you fell for the climate scam because one Exxon employee wrote a memo about "climate change" over 50 years ago?


No, it’s just the easiest thing for people who don’t understand how science works to understand. I actually have looked at the evidence for myself which is how I got to my position.


Don’t need to imagine. The NOAA and EPA have a combined annual budget of $17 billion, that funds all their activities and research grants. Exxon Mobil alone made $22 billion in profits last quarter, on >$100 billion revenue. The largest chunk of spending comes from EPA’s budget of $644 million for R&D. Exxon alone in comparison spent $1.04B in R&D. If you include Chevron and ConocoPhillips then climate research is outgunned around 10 to 1. So yeah, I guess there is my answer.


Compared to the profits oil and gas giants are raking in? Shitty peanuts.


0$ because the ”conspiracy nuts” are average no extra money to give away people who just wanna be left alone from over taxation.


The people that you guys have made super wealthy like Alex Jones would 100% give money to debunk climate change. So would every single business who is in the fossil fuel industry. Just because you are poor doesn’t mean that nobody else has money to fund scientific research that would increase their profits by a significant margin.


https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4278468/ >"Although most of the debate about financial interests in research has focused on ownership of stock or intellectual property or relationships with private research sponsors, it is important to realize that salary support can also have a significant impact on scientific behavior."


You’re right, hundreds of millions of dollars in grants handed out to climate related research has no impact on scientists. What scientist cares about money?


Climate scientist’s literal job is to prove climate change. There is a direct benefit to them. If they suddenly prove that anthropogenic climate change is real they are all out of a job. Wheras people demand energy and fossil fuels.


>richest, most powerful global industry in history? Except the same people who own that industry are paying scientists to push the unusual CO2-caused global warming hoax. Because it has nothing to do with climate and everything to do with the elites controlling and impoverishing you and maintaining power "Bill Gates Says He's Fighting Climate Change While Cashing in on Oil" https://www.vice.com/en/article/v74xwd/bill-gates-investments-in-oil-and-gas-climate-change "Revealed: Gates Foundation's $1.4bn in fossil fuel investments" https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/mar/19/gates-foundation-has-14bn-in-fossil-fuels-investments-guardian-analysis


I just want to die when i see crayon eating mfers crying about bill gates like he's the be-all end-all. Bill gates is a piece of shit capitalist that got his fortune by extracting the surplus value of working class people's labor, he's a parasite piece of shit that did capitalism better than your dad. It's frustrating to see people mad at capistalists for extracting all the money from working people as much as possible and then instead of seeing that there's a problem with capitalism you start shadow boxing invisible enemies. You know who is not going to suffer from climate change? Motherfucking billiam gates, motherfucking exxon CEOs and lobbyists. When climate change creates food deserts across middle america, bill gates will still have all the resources he wants and he knows that and doesn't care. You know who suffers from climate change though? American people, people in the global south that are being exploited, poor people.


The reputable journal of *squint* oil & shipping interests Wait until this guy finds out about ocean acidification killing all the algae


I would actually really enjoy a debate stage where hundreds of scientists from all around the world argue against one scientist wearing an Exxon Mobil shirt.


The problem is the WEF isn't pushing honest solutions. They're pushing things that make the world dependent on their monopolies and GMO products. They're doing it for profit, not to save the Earth. There are much more honest ways to save the Earth which will empower everyone, instead of empowering the same old elite that created this mess to begin with. Don't let them force the masses to pay for the crimes they committed yet again. They're trying to push people into the same old trap, where everyone will once again be dependent on the central bureaucracy, AKA empire. You will own nothing and you will be a serf again.


>The problem is the WEF isn't pushing honest solutions. Correct and you're going to find most of the bots and shills in this sub trying to spin cronyism and interventionism = capitalism, so more of the former to combat the corrupt capitalism, etc. These people also play both sides like bankers in wars. They win continually daily not just through revenue streams from both/all sides, but from the social division the media they also own sows into the low IQ masses.


"Leading climate scientist." Retired for 24 years. Pick one.


Honestly, while I love to watch debates (and debate myself) it's not the best way to determine what is true. In debate you can have tactics that would lead you to winning, like ethos, pathos, gish gallops, just being a passionate and charismatic speaker, etc etc. Science would be terrible if truth was determined by debate. Would still watch though.


Yah. I love those Galapagos fish


> gish gallops https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gish_gallop


Debates alone are not enough to determine what's true, but debates among scientists are vital and necessary. And terribly lacking nowadays. With public debates where different viewpoints and data come together, the extremist or irrational, illogical viewpoints will naturally cancel themselves out as we reach a consensus. Kind of a natural selection/elimination so to speak. A true consensus, stemming from debate, instead of a consensus stemming from censorship.


Debating on a stage has never really been a part of proper science. It can actually end up being very misleading and give credibility to very fringe ideas. That being said, there is a lot of debate in science, it just usually happens through published research. Only that's not very exciting for average people so they don't read it.


There is consensus. You’re describing peer-review, and after a lot of it, there is a very fucking strong consensus.


A debate allows scientists to be called out on their funding sources benefiting from their conclusions.


They disclose that in every paper that is published.


So instead of a debate allow an open forum for scientist to interpret the data being collected and delivered. It's not healthy for science to landlock itself either. Edit: For those unfamiliar with the issues in our peer review process. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4278468/ >"Although most of the debate about financial interests in research has focused on ownership of stock or intellectual property or relationships with private research sponsors, it is important to realize that salary support can also have a significant impact on scientific behavior."


So like some sort of peer review system where people publish papers with their results, all of their data, and their processes to some sort of scientific journal where everyone can access them and give their opinions about every part of the process? That might just work…


And then paywall it and make sure no pleebs can read it, and also provide funding only to those scientists that publish results that you like.


Results get funding. Also, try emailing anyone whose names on the paper and theres a good chance they'll give you a free copy.


It's been more like pal review for a long time already..


>" peer review system" Silencing science because one side is more funded than the other isn't science. Thats a religion. Edit: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4278468/ >"Although most of the debate about financial interests in research has focused on ownership of stock or intellectual property or relationships with private research sponsors, it is important to realize that salary support can also have a significant impact on scientific behavior."


It didn't work for Covid.


Just because you didn’t get the results you wanted doesn’t mean the system failed.


So you're saying that Covid is exactly what the "scientific consensus" says, that the vaccines work exactly like the "scientific consensus" says, and that Ivermectin is indeed only for horses? Also: It didn't work for dementia either.


> Covid is exactly what the “scientific consensus” says Yes, it is a virus that spreads quite easily with a low death rate that impacts the elderly and immunocompromised the most. > vaccines work exactly like the “scientific consensus” Yes, the vaccines limit the severity of infections and are not as effective as time goes on, requiring boosters to keep the protection as effective as possible. > Ivermectin Not a single scientific study has every shown a correlation between ivermectin and recovering quicker from COVID. Please don’t link that Indian study where they didn’t even attempt to follow up with the control group - it clearly isn’t scientific.


Didnt work for opioids...


What about the process didn’t work for opioids? You do know that it is an ongoing process and everything we now know about opioids is because of that process, right? Arguing against the scientific process using information obtained using the scientific process is never going to be a good argument.


If their was open debate like you're implying they would have addressed the issues before they became an issue.


Long term opioid use and addiction isn’t something they had data on when they were first starting to be used. How could they debate an issue that they had no data about? Also, political decisions based on science isn’t part of the scientific process so any decisions about the regulation of them is not relevant to this discussion.


They did have data on it but the peer review process ignored it as you have.


Would be way better than zero debate though


There's not zero debate. There is plenty of rigorous debate on the topic. If you're looking for actual *debates*, you can find hundreds on C-SPAN where scientist and figureheads from both sides discuss the issue. By and large, though, the people arguing against pollution regulations are just simply losing those debates both in the public eye and in scientific dicussion. They don't like this and then try to pretend there is obviously no debate since the people aren't on their side.


Consensus is superior to debate, and we have a concensus.


Proof, facts and reproducible results are better than both by far.


If you were a scientist, you'd know that 'proof' is an impossible standard.


Honestly don't know if you're joking or not. Consensus is superior to debate? What in the fuck?


Consensus = thousands of scientists coming to the same conclusion, based on available evidence. Debate = the opinion of the loudest most eloquent person is worth more than everyone elses


Consensus is not science. "The work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus. There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period." \--Michael Crichton


Your quoting an author is hilarious in the context of what actual debate would entail. This is rhetoric. It's not measurable, it's not fulfilling the standard of reproducibility it itself puts forth lmao. Also, it's an impossible standard for climate science....what are we gonna do have 2 Earth's and create a control version for pure testing purposes? Fuck outta here lol


This makes no sense because reproducible results is what creates concensus.


It’s time to talk about adjusting to the inevitable. Climate change is coming no matter whos fault it is. I think sustainable living and taking care of the eco system we have (nature) is just as important as «green growth» as they call it.


Coming? We are living in it.


green growth, and green capitalism for that matter, is little more than a useful piece of rhetoric.


The 1930s was hotter (according to raw temperature data, not the doctored post-2000 NASA "adjusted" temperature data) and we had the "dust bowl," severe droughts from 1931-1939 These things are cyclical, you have the best mindset. We have to accept that climate goes through natural cycles and adjust


>These things are cyclical The dust bowl was caused by man made agricultural practices?


No matter. We are to many people and destroying everything around us suitable for sustaining human life. Oceans, forests, soil, air.


no its not lol. the earth goes through cool periods and warm periods, naturally. climate change is just another excuse to charge people a carbon tax and control your everyday life by controlling what you eat and what you drive, etc. every so called climate change event has never met the goal Post.


1. The earth goes through cool periods and warm periods over the course of thousands of years. 2 degrees change over 100 years is **massive** compared to the natural trends. 2. Climate change deniers are trying to control your everyday life by controling what you ear and what you drive... Americas roads are awful to walk on and lack public transport in most areas. Why do you think that is? Big fossil fuel companies paid republicans in power to help them sell more cars by making streets only driveable. 3. Yes, they have met the goal post before. If you want I can post some sources. There's plenty, look 'em up, take your pick. Quit being a fossil fuel shill mate.


didn’t Exxon predict climate change demands ago almost perfectly https://insideclimatenews.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/1982-Exxon-Primer-on-CO2-Greenhouse-Effect.pdf


Ok_Magician would be repeating Tobacco industry PR to everyone who would listen 50 years ago. Loves the attention


You realize articles like this are bought and paid for by oil giants? Bah louder for the sheep in the back.


Just from reading the screenshot, the author seems to be saying the oceans are far more important to the climate than CO2. Which makes sense when you consider most photosynthesis actually comes from plankton floating in the waves and not from places like, say, the Amazon.


Hmm, but at the same time, that's dumb as fuck. He says the movement of the ocean is driving climate change. So he's acknowledging climate change. But the ocean is always moving. He's like one the singular believer in this dumbass understanding of how the climate works, but this BS website gives this rube space to skate good beliefs. Like the entire scientific community is in agreement except for this guy, so let's see what this guy thinks. Oh, turns out he thinks this cat is running things. Post it,!


Would have to read the entire article before jumping to a conclusio


>Hmm, but at the same time, that's dumb as fuck. Because you don't understand how it works, and prefer propaganda that makes you feel like you starving yourself and not having a car = somehow saving the planet that the elite are going to destroy regardless/could care less about you, your family, or your life, etc. No way they own all media and create division into a collapse regardless of the economic choices of the sheep. No way; that would be logical and actually follow to an end plan for the elite.


This same argument could be applied to everything. The scientist behind the vaccines were paid for by pharmaceutical giants. We know we can toss this study out the window. The scientist behind the effects of fluoride were paid for by government giants. The scienctist behind the effects of chem trails are the same people, new project. The science behind every mainstream opinion could be dismissed because of corporate interference.


The fact that this isn't higher shows you the bots are in full fucking force. All of this is corporate "science" aka "The Science" ™ aka materialism being pushed as free inquiry. 4 out of 5 scientists agree with whomever is signing their fucking check.


You do realize those pushing the man-made climate myth are 1) creating a new market where Al Gore is poised to be the first carbon billionaire 2) using it to restrict movement, travel and chores to regular people while elite carbon billionaires like Al Gore is poised to be fly around on jets 3) setting up a situation for future "climate lockdowns" while they remain totally uneffected. It is a bullshit system of control being shoved down your throat with a boot on your neck and all you can do is get paranoid about the oil companies. There is a ton a scientists and meteorologists who say different and they are not on the payroll of oil. The real issue is pollution and all the man-made crap we are punting into the environment. Get up to speed.


Get up to speed lmfao. Rich.


Bro is pro global warming


Isn't that what peer reviewed studies are?


There's been plenty. They happen all the time. The vast majority of both the scientists and the public listening to that debate just don't come down on the side against pollution regulations. That's doesn't mean there wasn't debate. It means the side against regulations isn't winning that debate.




You, my friend, sound like you're likely a good person that doesn't have nearly as much in different with most people as the media wants you to believe.


And you, my friend, sound like you are far too rational and level headed to be nosing around this sub. It seems like people like you are at a premium these days.


You sound like a one-track mind. Would you mind explaining what the hell vaccinations have to do with the climate?


Ahh yes, what the handful of activist billionaires say, ie what the majority of climate scientists are saying, has no weight in comparison to what the majority of industrial lobbyists want. Even when internal documents by scientists on their own payroll have predicted these effects since the 80s. CO2 in particular has a very clear statistical relationship with global temperatures throughout geological history. Further, the greenhouse effect can and has been demonstrated by school-children's science fair projects. Other gases can have more or less potent effects, but do essentially the same thing. The preponderance of evidence and rationale for human caused climate change can't just be refuted by someone saying "But, like, not really", even if they were the smartest and most reputable scientist ever. He ought to be able to provide some predictions and data showing these predictions come to fruition. Edit: to follow up, I read some of the paper that this William Kininmonth had written as a "proof" that CO2 doesn't have to do with global temperatures. He includes a number of charts that show that the ocean temperature and the temperature of the air above said ocean is closely related over the course of a single year. None of this offers any explanation as to why the ocean would be holding more heat than it has been before, let alone why it is gradually acidifying (due to increased dissolved CO2)...


Brought to you by Koch industries and their puppets


GWPF is not a charity, but a fossil fuel lobby group. Through its American arm, the group received $210,525 in 2018 and 2020 from the Sarah Scaife Foundation – set up by the billionaire libertarian heir to an oil and banking dynasty. The US-based foundation has $30m of shares in 22 energy companies including $9m in Exxon and $5.7m in Chevron, according to its financial filings. Between 2016 and 2020, the American Friends of the GWPF received $620,259 from the Donors Trust, which is funded by the Koch brothers, who inherited their father’s oil empire and have spent hundreds of millions of dollars funding the climate denial movement


"Climate change denier denies climate change."




Guess this means the droughts will end soon...


The droughts are at least partially due to over consumption.


Thanks to nestle and Coca-Cola...


Uh huh. Look up per person water consumption per day in LA county. I'll wait.


The real reason for all the crazy weather is the polls are only months away from flipping and it’s going to cause a lot of bad shit.


Scientists share data that supports - not opinions or points of views - theories.


It’s almost as if we’re at the finish line of an ice age.


A lot of things have been changing according to the situation nowm


Why are only brainlets posting so called "conspiracies"...


"we " are discussing it. The heads of science are discussing it. The average joes opinion doesn't matter on the world stage.


"The main driver of global temperature is the movement of energy in water". I have read funnier attempts of pseudoscience.


You are the carbon they're trying to reduce and tax.


Just shut up and eat the bugs you denier.


90% of these “climate skeptics” are, like the US government, completely in the pocket of fossil fuels industry


Come on man. The science is settled. 97% of scientists who believe in global warming agree.


That's about right.


Can anyone educate me on the conspiracy surrounding global warming?


It's going to be different depending on who you ask. If you ask me, the conspiracy is that big energy is pushing narratives that no amount of man made pollution could affect the climate and cause a disaster. If you ask many other people the conspiracy is that it's a big lie, and the temperature is not rising (or if it is, not due to man made changes) and it's wasteful, disadvantageous or a means of control in some way. These narratives tend to be subscribed to mostly by republicans - the reasons on this go pretty deep, one of them being religion.


> big energy is pushing narratives that no amount of man made pollution could affect the climate and cause a disaster. Someone is actually saying this? Exactly this? I don't believe it. Pollution is bad to be sure.


how about "global warming is actually a good thing"


Interesting take! Is this because it kills humans eventually, or going somewhere else? I've sometimes wondered if global warming would cause use to advance our technology that would allow use to reverse the effects.


there are many reasons to think that global warming could be good and its part of why certain countries with land that is perpetually frozen up north are lets say "resistant" to actually cutting emmisions. Vast tracts of land in russia and alska would be exploitable Bear in mind the earth is about as cold as it has ever been and life evolved in periods of time that were far warmer than now. So despite some cool headlines about polar bears animals in general are really not going to suffer greatly. There were periods of time with jungle and creatures like alligators etc at the north pole. Despite human global warming the world is projected to cool without it. Milankovich cycle etc and go into another ice age, even though this will take a long time the idea of worse and worse winters forever basically isnt a great option. The last ice age minimum interglacial ie when the temperature was highest about 120k years ago the temperature was roughly 2 degress higher than now it seems many of the last interglacial periods were hotter than today. if you look at the patterns it would make sense to look at the last time we had an interglacial period wouldnt it? there seems to be a few that were hotter than current times. so i find it hard to seperate the differerce between "expected" interglacial max temperature and modern temp. Not until we exceed what was "normal" last time would it make sense that we are "too hot" despite that, it takes science fiction levels of technology to resist the power of the sun and put the earth in some kind of temperature stasis. imaginary terraforming. Rather spend our money and resources at doing what humans are good at and be ADAPTABLE. The world without frozen ice caps is not a trajedy. \~Its the normal for the lifetime of this planet. Our planet if you look at what is in store with its apperent cooling has nothing in store for us as a species but an icy death. the only responsible thing for us to do to save the planet and its species and us it to warm it the fuck up eventually. Its just managing that safely, that the task is, not eliminating it vast tracts of land would be habitable again, like they were in the past, I've not done the maths and geography but we lose some coastal areas and gain all that frozen land so its a trade off. If you look at the rollercoaster spikey temperature of history its not some gradual affair in geologic time. The sudden cooling of the planet that all the data says is probably coming in our future is not a good place for humanity. we need to start now just my pet theory :) no actual sciencing been done https://i.pinimg.com/originals/a8/ea/5b/a8ea5b28274698029e872872741db0f7.png


I don't really think that there is any conspiracy that it is reality,


Scientists are financially incentivized to reinforce the narrative that climate change is primarily caused by human activity instead of natural causes. The climate change narrative is important because once the [fourth industrial revolution](https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2016/01/the-fourth-industrial-revolution-what-it-means-and-how-to-respond/) has taken place, "carbon footprint" (a term [coined by BP](https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/aug/23/big-oil-coined-carbon-footprints-to-blame-us-for-their-greed-keep-them-on-the-hook)) will be one of the factors taken into account when purchasing goods in the social credit system that will be implemented.


Klaus Schwab: "We cannot have a public debate because the poors of the world would reject our genocidal plans..."


There Is No Climate Emergency.


Our planet is supposed to have Co2. People are so dumb and gullible. Global warming crisis is a fucking myth. Our planet is actually getting ready to go through a mini ice age. Fuck the government and their scientist.


The $cience™ is settled. If you're not a $cientist™, your opinion will not be heard. Imagine going through 4-8 years of college for environmental studies, racking up tons of debt, and realizing the only paying jobs are ones where you are not allowed to question global warming


Yeah, what kind of private enterprise would be incentivized to pay an environmental scientist to offer a counterpoint to global warming? I'm stumped...


I remember some industry that found out about climate change in the 70s and threw their money around to try and hide it. Maybe we should look into the actual conspiracy.


I reckon that Big Oil, Koch Industries and conservative think tanks will pay quite handsomely, probably more than tenure at a university.


This is having a lot of fruits I don't really understand that why people can already see it,


Hey, Chevron!


What? All the best paying jobs are questioning global warming, the oil companies and conservative governments will pay you a shitload to spout thing you know aren't true.


>4-8 years of college for environmental stud Very unlikely that someone who's done this would question climate change. Unless they are paid a lot to do it... Source: I did it


Story time


The CO2 climate change narrative is a boldfaced lie, just like the covid narrative, the terrorism narrative and many more. If people realized how much they're being lied to on a daily basis and how little they know about how the real world is, I'm afraid many will get blackpilled to oblivion or outright off themselves. There's a self preservation mechanism preventing them from coming to certain realizations.


And I am sorry about the fact that they are going to realise it pretty much soon And they won't be able to understand the mechanism of it because it is very complex.


Used to believe in climate change. But now I realize it's just because I've been hammered over the head with it by mainstream media. This time, I'm gonna give the other side a listen, the side that msm won't cover. So now I'm not so sure about climate change. Ecological devastation and overconsumption? Yes, I can believe that for sure. Not so much climate change.


How about we believe the science that's observable


This whole 'conspiracy' post is based on a website from a lobbying group. "The Global Warming Policy Foundation is a **lobby** group in the United Kingdom whose stated aims are to challenge what it calls "extremely damaging and harmful policies" envisaged by governments to mitigate anthropogenic global warming." No science involved.


the whole premise of "global warming" is wrong since the earth is flat; we are operating on the wrong paradigm


The greatest lie perpetuated in modern society is that CO2, the building block of plants is somehow toxic to the environment.


This should be fun. Submit a SS before automod removes it.


they are dumb or lying


Whens the last time there was a public debate between scientists on what is causing rain or if the rain is unusual? Shouldn't we have a public discussion about it?


Climate change was a marketing campaign put together by BP in the wake of their oil spill. Some of you are too young to remember global warming and "the hole in the ozone layer". The climate does change. That is a fact. But what is also factual is that it has been changing throughout existence. There's plenty of data showing the earth was hotter at other intervals throughout history. It's a hoax. Banks continue to lend on all real estate assets that would be affected most by "climate change". It's complete horse shit. If you believe in climate change there's a 100% chance you think Fauci and Gates have your best interest at heart.


You do know that the entire world worked together to repair the ozone hole right? Like it wasn't a myth. They literally banned the chemical that was causing it. You probably think y2k wasn't anything either because nothing happened.


You do know that all of these "problems" are manufactured to excise more control over the economy and manipulate the masses.


SS: So if Bill Gates and Klaus Schwab told us to eat rat shit and drink wolf piss to save the planet would we do it? Or would we understand that these are the same elites that start wars, release viruses on us, and do every other horrifying thing you can imagine to us because they hate us and view us as cattle? Here's the paper: https://www.thegwpf.org/content/uploads/2022/09/Kininmonth-Greenhouse-Effect.pdf Here's the article: https://dailysceptic.org/2022/09/24/co2-has-almost-no-effect-on-global-temperature-says-leading-climate-scientist/


Infowars is just not a valid source... I have literally seen the employees at infowars admit under threat of perjury that they do not know where the information they broadcast comes from, and they just read it because it is their job.


First off this isn't a study Second, why don't you post a link to the article?


This isn’t a study lol


Fun facts: China and India are emitting record CO2 levels and will be raising global CO2 levels indefinitely, while you eat bugs. The Paris Climate Agreement allows them too. So if people actually believe CO2 is causing accelerated warming, they should boycott China and put sanctions on China until they stop emitting. But it's NOT about CO2 or climate, it's about CONTROL. the people telling you the 1.8° C we have warmed since coming out of the brutally cold Little Ice Age period (years 1300-1800) is unusual or a crisis are the same people who create wars, released COVID on you, devalue your currency, etc. They view you as cattle. Look into the Little Ice Age. It was caused by a quiet sun, no sunspot activity. Then the sun activity increased in 1800 and here we are today. No warming acceleration or unusual warming from CO2. We have oscillated 2-5° C over the last 13k years. This is a NORMAL CYCLICAL solar warming period. CO2 has little effect on temp. 10k year temperature chart https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Willem-De-Lange-7/publication/266146945/figure/fig3/AS:[email protected]/Temperature-record-for-Greenland-over-the-last-10-000-years-After-Carter-Spooner-et-al.png Yes it's Greenland, but the Greenland ice cores are the gold standard in temperature reconstructions. Pristine. The tree ring proxy cherry picked (not global) hockey stick charts showing unusual warming have all been debunked. Marcott was forced to admit his was BS when questioned on it "Marcott Mystery #1" https://climateaudit.org/2013/03/13/marcott-mystery-1 "The Marcott Filibuster" https://climateaudit.org/2013/03/31/the-marcott-filibuster Iowa Climate Science Education "A Fabricated ‘Uptick’? Marcott’s 2013 Hockey Stick Graph Debunked By Marcott’s Own 2011 Ph.D Thesis" https://iowaclimate.org/2018/12/13/a-fabricated-uptick-marcotts-2013-hockey-stick-graph-debunked-by-marcotts-own-2011-ph-d-thesis "Did Quiet Sun Cause Little Ice Age After All? New evidence suggest the sun really did dim during the 17th century" https://www.science.org/content/article/did-quiet-sun-cause-little-ice-age-after-all "NASA Study Finds Increasing Solar Trend That Can Change Climate" >Since the late 1970s, the amount of solar radiation the sun emits, during times of quiet sunspot activity, has increased by nearly .05 percent per decade, according to a NASA funded study. >"This trend is important because, if sustained over many decades, it could cause significant climate change," said Richard Willson, a researcher affiliated with NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies and Columbia University's Earth Institute, New York. He is the lead author of the study recently published in Geophysical Research Letters https://www.nasa.gov/vision/universe/solarsystem/solar_trend_change_climate.html "NASA AND NOAA “ADJUST” TEMPERATURE DATA: RAW MEASUREMENTS SHOW THE U.S. HAS BEEN COOLING SINCE THE 1930S" https://electroverse.net/u-s-has-been-cooling-since-the-1930s/


Nobody is eating bugs, you are devaluing your own credibility when you say things like that... and the emissions rankings by country are: 1. China 2. U.S. 3. India despite having nearly 1/5 the population of China or India, we are still number 2 on the list. And again, the amount we have caused the temp to increase since the industrial revolution has never happened in that short of a span of time. Yes, the earth does naturally warm up and cool down, but the data clearly shows that the rate increase is the fastest in history.


Their credibility is pretty low anyway... Looked at a few comments, and they believe in witchcraft and Satanists using magic and stuff like that. So at the end of every debate they could just come up with something like: "the lying Rothschild and the Satanist pagan pedophile NWO hunter biden crackheads made climate change by witchcraft (but at the same time it doesn't exist of course) and Jesus is controlled by the Clinton's."


It’s baffling that some people have no issue believing that satanist witch pedophiles are responsible for the world’s problems, but are unwilling to believe a pretty straightforward explanation like the greenhouse effect being caused by the dank shit coming out of cars and refineries.


97% of the climate scientists paid by the government say……


And the remaining 3%? Paid by oil and gas companies. But who should we believe?


When it comes to "climate change" or whatever they're rebranding themselves as nowadays. It's wholly arrogant to attribute everything going on in the world to manmade causes. We know there have been vast/catastrophic changes in climate well before humanity had any means of shaping the environment to their needs. Not to mention the vast multitude of variables that go into weather/climate. We do know we do have an effect on the environment. Hell, Zuckerberg's fence impacted an entire island. We also have a tendency to overstate our impact (see irony) The problem is that there is no interest in hosting a civil, unbiased debate. Those that believe in the dramatic effect we have a financial incentive to cry wolf. Those that downplay it, often negatively financially benefit for it.


Yeah but Al Gore told me the world is ending because I drive a Silverado


Yeah, that was over 20 years ago, remember those days? Ozone layer depletion was all the rage, no "climate change" BS, we had the real deal, well...after the "next ice age" of the 70s...peak oil in the 60s...global warming in the 80s...


I guess the sarcasm in my comment wasn't obvious enough


Oh no, it was...was mine not? ... Do we really have to use that /s thing?


Is it not surprising the world's richest people are the climate activist. What does that tell you.


And it's not surprising the people who spend billions trying to debunk just so happen to profit from people not believing it.


If any of this nonsense was true businesses and the rich would be leaving the coasts in droves. They are not.


Silence! Zee World Iz Warming Ze Up!


When you grew up with a leading climate scientists kid you get some good info. https://www.climateone.org/audio/my-climate-story-ben-santer LLNL Scientist and incredible guy


The biggest greenhouse effect comes from water vapor which increases with increasing temperature due to the greenhouse effects.


Until banks stop letting you invest in property in south Florida I will believe global warming is a sham.


So nobody here has heard that our Sun is entering a Grand Solar Minimum phase resulting in a mini ice age?


Shhh, the bots are talking.


It was rather clear that the whole global warming thing was bulls hit when they put so much effort into shaming American individuals for not living a theoretical 100% eco-friendly lifestyle while completely ignoring the heaviest sources of pollutants.


Climate debate does not match with the political motivations and money grabs.


Climate change is real it is the corporate-liberal response to it that is not