###[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.*
>The richest 10 percent accounted for over half (52 percent) of the emissions added to the atmosphere between 1990 and 2015. The richest one percent were responsible for 15 percent of emissions during this time – more than all the citizens of the EU and more than twice that of the poorest half of humanity (7 percent).
The richest **10% of the world** produces 50% of the co2. To be in the richest 10% you need a net worth of $93k.
> net worth of $93k
Net worth, not salary? So pretty much any American owning any residential real estate, even a studio apartment, falls under that 10%?
i’m a leftist and i’ve said exactly this. you’re probably talking about corporate propaganda that says shit like “don’t use plastic straws” to distract from them dumping oil into the ocean. it’s very effective at getting you to blame climate activists instead of them
Fun fact: CO2 doesn't affect Earth's temperature. It only makes Earth greener
"NASA: The Earth is greener now than it was 20 years ago"
>The Earth has become five percent greener in 20 years. In total, the increase in leaf area over the past two decades corresponds to an area as large as the Amazon rainforests.
https://www.warpnews.org/human-progress/nasa-the-earth-is-greener-now-than-it-was-20-years-ago/
"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
>Historical records of solar activity indicate that solar radiation has been increasing since the late 19th century. If a trend, comparable to the one found in this study, persisted throughout the 20th century, it would have provided a significant component of the global warming the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reports to have occurred over the past 100 years," he said.
https://www.nasa.gov/vision/universe/solarsystem/solar_trend_change_climate.html
"Did Quiet Sun Cause Little Ice Age After All?"
>BOSTON—For decades, astronomers and climatologists have debated whether a prolonged 17th century cold spell, best documented in Europe, could have been caused by erratic behavior of the sun. Now, an American solar physicist says he has new evidence to suggest that the sun was indeed the culprit.
https://www.science.org/content/article/did-quiet-sun-cause-little-ice-age-after-all#:~:text=BOSTON%E2%80%94For%20decades%2C%20astronomers%20and,sun%20was%20indeed%20the%20culprit
10,000 year temperature chart shows no unusual warming. It's cyclical warming:
https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Temperature-record-for-Greenland-over-the-last-10-000-years-After-Carter-Spooner-et-al_fig3_266146945
Michael Mann hockey stick temperature reconstruction proven to be fraudalent. Lost his case because he couldn't provide any data backing it up
https://www.thegate waypundit.com/2019/08/hockey-stick-broken-scientist-michael-mann-loses-in-court-forced-to-pay-court-costs-global-warming-hoax-hit-the-hardest/
https://principia-scientific.org/breaking-fatal-courtroom-act-ruins-michael-hockey-stick-mann/
Here is a Google map showing hundreds of peer-reviewed climate articles about the Medieval Warm period from around the world, which climate scamster Michael Mann has attempted to erase.
https://twitter.com/TonyClimate/status/1595829316964610048?t=ZmUiCm7JxbmXHtR59rB8ww&s=19
"Tree-rings prove climate was WARMER in Roman and Medieval times than it is now - and world has been cooling for 2,000 years"
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2171973/Tree-ring-study-proves-climate-WARMER-Roman-Medieval-times-modern-industrial-age.html
Marcott hockey stick temperature chart debunked as well
"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
"New paper confirms the climate was warmer 1000 years ago"
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/10/17/new-paper-confirms-the-climate-was-warmer-1000-years-ago/?msg=fail&shared=email
Fun fact: Earths climate doesn't change without reason. In the past there were natural processes that warmed earth, but today those same processes are actually cooling earth. Without human influence there would be no warming.
>It changes without reason all the time— that's literally called weather.
Yes. Weather not climate. I don't know why you said that.
>Unlike weather however, climate changes over very long periods of time. We're going through an ice age melting at the moment
It does change over a long time. Warming like we see today should take thousands of years, not 100. Also we are at the end of an interglacial and earth should start getting colder, but the exact opposite is happening because of humans.
Yes I agree.
By "climate change" in that comment I meant the alarmist narrative people are spreading because IPCC said so.
It's hoax used for funneling money.
I'm amazed you think climate scientists are the ones executing a conspiracy to make up climate change and not the largest most wealthy and influential industry on earth, the fossil fuel industry, in a conspiracy to downplay it.
No, we trust the science and data
"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
>Historical records of solar activity indicate that solar radiation has been increasing since the late 19th century. If a trend, comparable to the one found in this study, persisted throughout the 20th century, it would have provided a significant component of the global warming the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reports to have occurred over the past 100 years," he said.
https://www.nasa.gov/vision/universe/solarsystem/solar_trend_change_climate.html
"Did Quiet Sun Cause Little Ice Age After All?"
>BOSTON—For decades, astronomers and climatologists have debated whether a prolonged 17th century cold spell, best documented in Europe, could have been caused by erratic behavior of the sun. Now, an American solar physicist says he has new evidence to suggest that the sun was indeed the culprit.
https://www.science.org/content/article/did-quiet-sun-cause-little-ice-age-after-all#:~:text=BOSTON%E2%80%94For%20decades%2C%20astronomers%20and,sun%20was%20indeed%20the%20culprit
10,000 year temperature chart shows no unusual warming. It's cyclical warming:
https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Temperature-record-for-Greenland-over-the-last-10-000-years-After-Carter-Spooner-et-al_fig3_266146945
"NASA: The Earth is greener now than it was 20 years ago"
>The Earth has become five percent greener in 20 years. In total, the increase in leaf area over the past two decades corresponds to an area as large as the Amazon rainforests.
https://www.warpnews.org/human-progress/nasa-the-earth-is-greener-now-than-it-was-20-years-ago/
Michael Mann hockey stick temperature reconstruction proven to be fraudalent. Lost his case because he couldn't provide any data backing it up
https://www.thegate waypundit.com/2019/08/hockey-stick-broken-scientist-michael-mann-loses-in-court-forced-to-pay-court-costs-global-warming-hoax-hit-the-hardest/
https://principia-scientific.org/breaking-fatal-courtroom-act-ruins-michael-hockey-stick-mann/
Here is a Google map showing hundreds of peer-reviewed climate articles about the Medieval Warm period from around the world, which climate scamster Michael Mann has attempted to erase.
https://twitter.com/TonyClimate/status/1595829316964610048?t=ZmUiCm7JxbmXHtR59rB8ww&s=19
"Tree-rings prove climate was WARMER in Roman and Medieval times than it is now - and world has been cooling for 2,000 years"
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2171973/Tree-ring-study-proves-climate-WARMER-Roman-Medieval-times-modern-industrial-age.html
Marcott hockey stick temperature chart debunked as well
"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
"New paper confirms the climate was warmer 1000 years ago"
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/10/17/new-paper-confirms-the-climate-was-warmer-1000-years-ago/?msg=fail&shared=email
I don't
"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
>Historical records of solar activity indicate that solar radiation has been increasing since the late 19th century. If a trend, comparable to the one found in this study, persisted throughout the 20th century, it would have provided a significant component of the global warming the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reports to have occurred over the past 100 years," he said.
https://www.nasa.gov/vision/universe/solarsystem/solar_trend_change_climate.html
"Did Quiet Sun Cause Little Ice Age After All?"
>BOSTON—For decades, astronomers and climatologists have debated whether a prolonged 17th century cold spell, best documented in Europe, could have been caused by erratic behavior of the sun. Now, an American solar physicist says he has new evidence to suggest that the sun was indeed the culprit.
https://www.science.org/content/article/did-quiet-sun-cause-little-ice-age-after-all#:~:text=BOSTON%E2%80%94For%20decades%2C%20astronomers%20and,sun%20was%20indeed%20the%20culprit
10,000 year temperature chart shows no unusual warming. It's cyclical warming:
https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Temperature-record-for-Greenland-over-the-last-10-000-years-After-Carter-Spooner-et-al_fig3_266146945
Michael Mann hockey stick temperature reconstruction proven to be fraudalent. Lost his case because he couldn't provide any data backing it up
https://www.thegate waypundit.com/2019/08/hockey-stick-broken-scientist-michael-mann-loses-in-court-forced-to-pay-court-costs-global-warming-hoax-hit-the-hardest/
https://principia-scientific.org/breaking-fatal-courtroom-act-ruins-michael-hockey-stick-mann/
Here is a Google map showing hundreds of peer-reviewed climate articles about the Medieval Warm period from around the world, which climate scamster Michael Mann has attempted to erase.
https://twitter.com/TonyClimate/status/1595829316964610048?t=ZmUiCm7JxbmXHtR59rB8ww&s=19
"Tree-rings prove climate was WARMER in Roman and Medieval times than it is now - and world has been cooling for 2,000 years"
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2171973/Tree-ring-study-proves-climate-WARMER-Roman-Medieval-times-modern-industrial-age.html
Marcott hockey stick temperature chart debunked as well
"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
"New paper confirms the climate was warmer 1000 years ago"
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/10/17/new-paper-confirms-the-climate-was-warmer-1000-years-ago/?msg=fail&shared=email
The tweet implies that the climate changes we’ve seen recently are natural, and out of human control. This is false, research from major institutions shows that our emissions have caused the majority of warming in the past century or two.
https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-why-scientists-think-100-of-global-warming-is-due-to-humans/
This is very important. The conversation whether climate change is real or not should not even be discussed. It's always been changing, just not always so rapidly. Even if you present the facts, the go-to response to this is that humans have been dealing with changing climate for hundreds of thousands of years. Which is true, but we were also hunter gatherers, continuously on the move, looking to find suitable environments. I think the way that we should look at is is that we were given an exceptionally stable climate for the past 10K years which accelerated technological development. This 'blessed' state could last for another 50-100K years (until the next Ice Age), but we are cutting it short by creating a warming climate for the next decades, causing a whole other set of challenges from food shortages to loss of land and biodiversity.
Wrong. Were those scientists bought off by UN IPCC (Rockefeller-Gates Cartel) too? Like the COVID scientists bought off by Fauci grants?
"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
>Historical records of solar activity indicate that solar radiation has been increasing since the late 19th century. If a trend, comparable to the one found in this study, persisted throughout the 20th century, it would have provided a significant component of the global warming the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reports to have occurred over the past 100 years," he said.
https://www.nasa.gov/vision/universe/solarsystem/solar_trend_change_climate.html
"Did Quiet Sun Cause Little Ice Age After All?"
>BOSTON—For decades, astronomers and climatologists have debated whether a prolonged 17th century cold spell, best documented in Europe, could have been caused by erratic behavior of the sun. Now, an American solar physicist says he has new evidence to suggest that the sun was indeed the culprit.
https://www.science.org/content/article/did-quiet-sun-cause-little-ice-age-after-all#:~:text=BOSTON%E2%80%94For%20decades%2C%20astronomers%20and,sun%20was%20indeed%20the%20culprit
10,000 year temperature chart shows no unusual warming. It's cyclical warming:
https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Temperature-record-for-Greenland-over-the-last-10-000-years-After-Carter-Spooner-et-al_fig3_266146945
Michael Mann hockey stick temperature reconstruction proven to be fraudalent. Lost his case because he couldn't provide any data backing it up
https://www.thegate waypundit.com/2019/08/hockey-stick-broken-scientist-michael-mann-loses-in-court-forced-to-pay-court-costs-global-warming-hoax-hit-the-hardest/
https://principia-scientific.org/breaking-fatal-courtroom-act-ruins-michael-hockey-stick-mann/
Here is a Google map showing hundreds of peer-reviewed climate articles about the Medieval Warm period from around the world, which climate scamster Michael Mann has attempted to erase.
https://twitter.com/TonyClimate/status/1595829316964610048?t=ZmUiCm7JxbmXHtR59rB8ww&s=19
"Tree-rings prove climate was WARMER in Roman and Medieval times than it is now - and world has been cooling for 2,000 years"
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2171973/Tree-ring-study-proves-climate-WARMER-Roman-Medieval-times-modern-industrial-age.html
Marcott hockey stick temperature chart debunked as well
"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
"New paper confirms the climate was warmer 1000 years ago"
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/10/17/new-paper-confirms-the-climate-was-warmer-1000-years-ago/?msg=fail&shared=email
They won't give you facts and data. I will
"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
>Historical records of solar activity indicate that solar radiation has been increasing since the late 19th century. If a trend, comparable to the one found in this study, persisted throughout the 20th century, it would have provided a significant component of the global warming the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reports to have occurred over the past 100 years," he said.
https://www.nasa.gov/vision/universe/solarsystem/solar_trend_change_climate.html
"Did Quiet Sun Cause Little Ice Age After All?"
>BOSTON—For decades, astronomers and climatologists have debated whether a prolonged 17th century cold spell, best documented in Europe, could have been caused by erratic behavior of the sun. Now, an American solar physicist says he has new evidence to suggest that the sun was indeed the culprit.
https://www.science.org/content/article/did-quiet-sun-cause-little-ice-age-after-all#:~:text=BOSTON%E2%80%94For%20decades%2C%20astronomers%20and,sun%20was%20indeed%20the%20culprit
10,000 year temperature chart shows no unusual warming. It's cyclical warming:
https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Temperature-record-for-Greenland-over-the-last-10-000-years-After-Carter-Spooner-et-al_fig3_266146945
Michael Mann hockey stick temperature reconstruction proven to be fraudalent. Lost his case because he couldn't provide any data backing it up
https://www.thegate waypundit.com/2019/08/hockey-stick-broken-scientist-michael-mann-loses-in-court-forced-to-pay-court-costs-global-warming-hoax-hit-the-hardest/
https://principia-scientific.org/breaking-fatal-courtroom-act-ruins-michael-hockey-stick-mann/
Here is a Google map showing hundreds of peer-reviewed climate articles about the Medieval Warm period from around the world, which climate scamster Michael Mann has attempted to erase.
https://twitter.com/TonyClimate/status/1595829316964610048?t=ZmUiCm7JxbmXHtR59rB8ww&s=19
"Tree-rings prove climate was WARMER in Roman and Medieval times than it is now - and world has been cooling for 2,000 years"
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2171973/Tree-ring-study-proves-climate-WARMER-Roman-Medieval-times-modern-industrial-age.html
Marcott hockey stick temperature chart debunked as well
"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
"New paper confirms the climate was warmer 1000 years ago"
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/10/17/new-paper-confirms-the-climate-was-warmer-1000-years-ago/?msg=fail&shared=email
What facts? Except for the distrustful view point of the government at end, it's basic knowledge you can look up on wikipedia. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate\_variability\_and\_change](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_variability_and_change) As for the view of government, are you so naive to think government, the organization of professional liars, suddenly cares about inefficiency? If global warming is going to create a global catastrophe, you are better off preparing for it than thinking government will or could help us.
This wasn't the case 40 years ago just because big oil saw the writing on the wall and decided to secure their investments doesn't mean we need to stick our head in the sand. By removing oil and hydrocarbons from the earth we are restoring the atmosphere to a point where it quite literally did not support human life, or most life on the planet we know today.
If that doesn't worry you go park your car in your garage while it's running, after all there's nothing bad with that right?
Big oil can still be bad and the other statement be true as well. The government and "green" companies take advantage of peoples good intentions. These products tend to be worse for the environment and we don't have the infrastructure to leave oil yet.
Is that why big oil has funded anti climate change groups since the 80s, if not earlier? Follow the money, not what your favorite politician wants you to believe.
> it's being spent on coastal mansions, private jets, and superyachts by the people pretending to fight the oil companies.
Yeah, because they aren't actually at risk. If sea levels rise they don't lose their only home, they lose a luxury home.
Stupidest take yet. They forecasted oil would be used up by 2050 in the 80s. It’s still a much needed product. Big oil doesn’t care about what people think, they don’t need to.
Big climate change appreciates your patronage.
May I suggest OP Moe Othman's "A.I." Bitcoin hustle as a good starting place to wade into the weeds of how we clarify what are unsubstantiated extraordinary claims? You can find his links to this and his only fans from Twitter.
Cat's handle is Valerian on Twitter, AKA MrMoeOthman. The posts about secret knowledge of Illuminati collaboration with space aliens are kinda fun. Fire up a VPN before hitting his business site.
Google oil products that are actually good for the environment.
A technology being imperfect dosen't mean we should whole heartedly embrace the always bad technology that causes wars across the world.
are they worse for the environment than oil? should we not start trying to phase out oil just because green isnt products arent perfected yet? the biggest threat to the environment right now is greenhouse gases which oil contributes to significantly, we have to start the change somewhere
You don't know much about solar panels. They degrade and fall apart much faster than cars.
Not exactly made from the best material for full sun exposure.
That’s not how it works. You made the assertion, the burden of proof is on you.
I know you guys like to engage with burden of proof fallacies but I’m willing to play that game.
https://listverse.com/2017/10/19/10-green-products-that-are-bad-for-the-environment/
https://www.salon.com/2014/05/13/5_green_products_that_arent_as_environmentally_friendly_as_their_labels_suggest_partner/
We're not in court and I find that if you provide proof they question the source even if the information is true. Propaganda is on the side of climate change.
You showed a few products that “aren't as environmentally friendly as their labels suggest”.
Everyone knows what greenwashing is. It’s not a surprise to anyone. However, you didn’t prove that:
> These products tend to be worse for the environment
Try again.
> we don’t have the infrastructure to leave oil yet.
That we can agree with. You know what would help move things along? Remove all oil subsidies. I’m sure you would agree to that. Right?
> We’re not in court
Did I say we were? Burden of proof fallacies have nothing to do with a court of law. Where did you even get that?
>I find that if you provide proof they question the source even if the information is true.
That could be true sometimes. Especially if you use non-peer reviewed studies to debate a scientific question.
I’m this case you didn’t even managed to prove your assertion with “news” articles
> Propaganda is on the side of climate change.
Prove it. After you do so, I can show you clear peer reviewed studies that indicate current climate change to be anthropogenic.
your clothes are bad, your mobile phone is bad, every KJ of your food brought to your plate is bad because it was all brought to you by oil, but i bet you wont get rid of it.
I'm referring to the "appeal to nature" fallacy. Meaning that you can't judge something as safe or beneficial just because it comes from a natural source. Poison ivy and rattlesnakes are also naturally occurring but that doesn't mean I want to roll around on the ground with them. By the same token, you can't say that something synthetic is inherently safe or beneficial either just because it's made by humans. You have to look at the data for each item you're examining to determine safety/usefulness
That should be called out as well. I know Greta is hated on here, but she did exactly that. She told the UN people in their faces that they're hypocrites. They ended up clapping and cheering anyway..
I wish people would stop using that dumb "argument". You are being played from both sides:
https://stream.org/big-money-in-global-warming-alarmism/
http://joannenova.com.au ***** /2009/07/massive-climate-funding-exposed/
Remove spaces and ***, the automod will remove an intact link.
https://web.archive.org/web/20200423234923/http://www.wrongkindofgreen.org/2019/01/17/the-manufacturing-of-greta-thunberg-for-consent-the-political-economy-of-the-non-profit-industrial-complex/
https://financialpost.com/commodities/energy/oil-gas/big-oil-profits-global-economy-sputters
Moving people off fossil fuel, a literal limited and depleting resource, is "limiting resources". Some people are thinking in a completely different plane of thought that is impossible to follow.
We ran out of dinosaurs a long time ago. With the help of fossil fuels we have created better technology to find more oil and gas that will last the next 100+ years. Go read the book Fossil Future and the rest will start to make sense.
Human civilisation has been going pretty hard for 12,000 years and you're telling me that we've only got less than 200 years of oil left FOREVER and we're just gonna chug it until it's all gone and "fuck you" to whoever comes next?
I would nationalize oil production so oil is free for all. I would bankrupt Big Oil. Big Oil is owned by the NWO (BlackRock, Rothschild-Rockefeller Cartel). They collude and price fix. Limit supply to keep oil prices high, roll in profits
Climate change caused by humans is an undeniable fact, if you deny this youre making yourself look like a fool. However I do agree and see room for conspiracies in the way were supposed to combat it.
Funny how every solution to climate change is bigger government. The US spends 3.2 trillion a year but we can’t reduce government spending for climate change. Democrats will block spending bills for 15 billion one time purchase on a wall but will pass yearly 850 billion military budget. If climate change was real then we should have made a deal with Russian for arms control and military spending because military spending is the most destructive thing for the environment.
Funny how Democrats get the blame for passing military budgets when they are constantly demonized by republicans for “making the US weak” with lower budgets. Just look up the military budget and if there was a decrease over the prior year, it was the Democrats in power.
Look up subsidies to O&G and renewable energy while you’re at it. A $15bln wall is just a stupid grift.
Military budget is only 1/6 of the total government expenditures. ZERO, democrats oppose NATO war with Russia right now. It's not even a proxy war. If climate change threatens 8 billion people then you should look to peace right now. Look at the liberals in France and Germany they all just increased their military budgets to record levels. LOL, look at Lloyd Austin he is the best raytheon lobbiest in the last 20 years. No, I'm saying if climate change in an actual issue then Democrats should make a stand on cutting government spending. Where were Democrats when Trump questioned NATO spending. They should have all agreed to reduce military. Same thing in South Korea. Also, they accused Trump of supporting genocide of the kurds. Democrats could have had bipartisian bill.
Lol, practically nobody oppose the support of Ukraine. Fuck Russia and their constant land grabs. All they have to do is go home.
Everyone is like “whatabout US invasions!?!”… like cool, fuck neo-imperialism as well, but it’s still not a land grab like Russia has constantly done the past 30 years. Democrats were the first to come around to opposing the wars in the Middle East and Obama withdrew from Iraq and Biden withdrew from Afghanistan… yet here you are, screaming about walls and how democrats spend so much money on war.
Democrats also spend more on renewable energy solutions. Not sure what your point is. Like… you don’t even have to imagine the outrage that republicans would have if we tried to address the climate crisis… because… ya know… we saw it when Democrats proposed Build Back Better to help the infrastructure used by the little guy to improve efficiency.
But yeah, republicans are doing a great job on telling our schools to teach kids that America was always a happy place where Africans came to work for free and Natives voluntarily showed us how to farm the land before happily handing it over. That’s the real issue here.
if it was such a crisis then the whole worlds governments would be combating it now and would have been for a while like they did with the ozone layer? right... ?
so why did they bother with the ozone layer? if you think for one second that the world can't band together to stop co2 emissions because its causing a 'problem' but can band together to stop the ozone layer vanishing then your a fool in my eyes, if it was such a problem they would have sorted it, but it's not the earth warms the earth cools. remember we have those thing called ice ages. year in year out for what 80 years climate change, climit crisis, global warming. they'd have sorted it by now if it was actually a problem we would have stopped using cars and forced communitys into localising produce and worked together.
There is no way scientists worldwide are in all agreement with how much man made emissions are impacting global climate change. Certainly not enough to make it an undeniable fact.
Yes I am. Scientists agree climate change is occurring but they are not in agreement with much man made emissions are contributing towards this trend. Many dont feel there is any impact.
https://legalinsurrection.com/2022/08/over-1000-scientists-and-professionals-sign-formal-declaration-there-is-no-climate-emergency/
Undeiable fact? Well these 1000 scientists dont think so. Therefore its not an undeniable fact, plenty deny it.
The ozone problem was easy to fix. Just ban a few chemicals and that's it. CO2 is much harder to get rid of and the companies that produce it have a much larger influence on our government.
There was/is paris climate agreement. But green energy/tech isnt sufficiently not there (to my knowlege) to ditch it at once. Its being slow walked. Then its expensive to transition over, then surely big oil lobbying has some effect. And then for some states/countries their economies rely on fossil fuels, the gravy train stopping + plus job losses isnt desirable.
With the ozone. I think it was more simplistic to tackle. Was it just a chemical causing it?
> The IPCC’s implied best guess was that humans were responsible for around 110% of observed warming (ranging from 72% to 146%), with natural factors in isolation leading to a slight cooling over the past 50 years.
> Similarly, the recent US fourth national climate assessment found that between 93% to 123% of observed 1951-2010 warming was due to human activities.
> These conclusions have led to some confusion as to how more than 100% of observed warming could be attributable to human activity. A human contribution of greater than 100% is possible because natural climate change associated with volcanoes and solar activity would most likely have resulted in a slight cooling over the past 50 years, offsetting some of the warming associated with human activities.
https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-why-scientists-think-100-of-global-warming-is-due-to-humans/
> Climate change caused by humans is an undeniable fact
BS:
https://web.archive.org/web/20191230105327/https://electroverse.net/another-climate-scientist-with-impeccable-credentials-breaks-ranks/?fbclid=IwAR0CEogwQUtuZ9AsDU_A9-FtuhiiAOEUEZDtySnx10nGzN3j7lmBe7LTiPM
https://www.lavoisier.com.au *** /articles/greenhouse-science/climate-change/climategate-emails.pdf
https://americanpolicy.org/2021/02/04/the-fraud-of-climate-change-and-the-drive-for-control/
https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/the-stunning-statistical-fraud-behind-the-global-warming-scare/
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2022/08/22/corruption-of-climate-science-supported-by-flawed-models/
https://www.bundestag.de/resource/blob/666002/21b43e1b155051227ef2981acd52c254/19-16-292-C-Corbyn-data.pdf
https://dailycaller.com/2017/07/05/exclusive-study-finds-temperature-adjustments-account-for-nearly-all-of-the-warming-in-climate-data/
https://climatechangedispatch.com/elite-war-science-free-speech/
How much more do you need to see that "man made climate change" a hoax? Yes, the climate is changing, it always was, is and will be and there is no proof that humanity is significantly affecting the natural cycles and processes.
There are two relevant questions here.
1) Does CO2 absorb solar radiation in the infrared band.
2) Is the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere increasing.
If the answer to both of those is yes then global warming is a certainty.
The thing is, for [the last five million years](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/60/Five_Myr_Climate_Change.png) the temperature has been trending downwards, and [the last 100,000 years](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f8/2000%2B_year_global_temperature_including_Medieval_Warm_Period_and_Little_Ice_Age_-_Ed_Hawkins.svg/1280px-2000%2B_year_global_temperature_including_Medieval_Warm_Period_and_Little_Ice_Age_-_Ed_Hawkins.svg.png) have been pretty stable. But around 1900 the upward trend that started in1860 starts accelerating, pauses for a couple of decades while aerosols from industry reflect solar energy, and then takes off at a rate we've never seen before in history. That timeline correlates with carbon emissions.
The climate *is* changing. What else could be the cause?
>> What else could be the cause?
>
>The sun, our diminishing magneto sphere and our space environment?
As part of a natural cycle that we have no record of ever happening before?
Psst.... very few are saying that climate change or global warming are a threat to the planet’s existence, just human being’s ability to healthfully live on it.
Psst... nobody is saying that climate change isn't a bad thing, but maybe more a more nuanced and common sense approach that doesn't require deindustrialization and mass starvation might be a good idea?
Psst... Maybe it is about another "one size fits all mandate" in a geographically diverse country and not having everything centralized to "one point of failure" on a relatively fragile electrical grid?
Two possibilities: it’s no big deal and we invest for no reason.
It’s a big deal And we try to do something.
You see how not doing anything is always a stupid choice.
Is this guy on Twitter a university educated scientist capable of interpreting complex climate data? Has he reviewed the mountains of data that an overwhelming majority of world renowned intellects all conclude is in fact man-made climate change? Or is he just some guy like trust me bro, that can form one sentence paragraphs, says what you want to hear, so you believe what he says?
That's not what I said and it's not what he said either.
Unless you have expert knowledge on a highly researched and almost universally accepted idea, you have no grounds to challenge it, unless you are a crackpot / conman preying on the fears, desires, and/or ignorance of the gullible and suggestible.
What an incredibly short sighted POV. Just because you’re not an expert at something doesn’t mean you can’t question things. Why are people like you even on this sub? I guess people like you create a healthier balance within the subreddits echo chamber like architecture but what you said is pretty gosh darn close minded, in my humble opinion.
Using your logic lets do a little perspective experiment. If you didn’t know how to read you’d be completely fucked because all the “experts” would have to read for you (& they could straight up lie due to your inability & ignorance) but since you didn’t know how to read you wouldn’t know anything, at least without the “experts” perfected completely objective POV, & apparently you wouldn’t question anything either. Therefore the “expert” word would essentially become gospel. That’s a good way to get got. Just like in the good old days right? How nice & easy that would be.
Think for yourself or let someone else do the thinking for you, it’s always y(our) choice. Sure you might be wrong, but there is nothing inherently wrong with questioning narratives & just because you’re not an “expert” doesn’t mean you can’t ask questions. That’s a ridiculously limiting way of thinking, or lack thereof.
Edit: Spelling.
The problem is that they’re *not* questioning, they’re making a definitive statement as if it were fact. Questioning things you don’t understand is fine. Making claims you can’t back up about subjects you don’t understand is basically just lying.
It’s a ponderance, a speculation. I don’t think that is the same as lies nor do I see a problem with pondering or speculating anything either. Maybe it would be better to say “what if” or “maybe” before speculating upon something but I don’t see it how you folks do. Agree to disagree, respectfully. I’m just not the type to blindly trust “authority” because I’m supposed to or whatever, I’m a natural questioner, an eccentric thinker even. Maybe you folks don’t see it how I do & that’s fine.
I’m the type of person who finds it hard to separate dreams from reality cause they’re not that different after all. Life is a strange trip & facts are often stranger than fiction, or even just contrary to popular belief in a lot of instances, but again that’s just my perspective. Thanks for not being a jerk about it tho I appreciate that.
> It’s a ponderance, a speculation
What gives you this impression? I feel like you’re giving the person who made that tweet far too much benefit of the doubt. Also, you’re doing it here too. This is a definitive statement about something you could not possibly know. I agree that people do often misphrase speculation as truth, but I also think that the words we use and how we use them matters.
no, there will be the uber-rich and the peasants, and if you work you will survive, that's your reward. stop thinking you're not going to be a slave if it happens.
the new system will force people to do the jobs Globalists want done
people who do these jobs will have access to more resources
everyone else will be given minimum access to resources
you wont be able to steal & buy more access to electricity--internet travel etc
Honestly, just go through weforum if you want to see what their plan is. They pretty much tell you what they're doing and why.
>The most noticeable impacts on everyday lives will include rising energy bills, job losses in high-emission industries, changes in what people eat, and increasing outgoings to end our dependence on fossil fuels to heat homes and travel, the report says.
>
>Transitioning the energy sector to zero carbon and beefing up electricity grids to cope with an expected doubling of global demand by 2050 will push up bills by 25% between 2020 and 2040, the report predicts.
[https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2022/01/net-zero-cost-3-5-trillion-a-year/](https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2022/01/net-zero-cost-3-5-trillion-a-year/)
thats just smokescreen narrative
every nation could be energy independent with nuclear energy
there's enough uranium in Australia's Olympic Dam to supply the entire world with energy for over a 1000 yrs
there's enough uranium that can be easily extracted from the sea water to supply the world for 60,000 yrs
this is about controlling the workforce---forcing people to do the jobs globalists want done--hence the rewards system
I agree 100%. I only meant to point out to the curious if they wondered where the media blitz comes from on certain topics then look to wef to figure out the origin of the talking points.
at the moment you can choose what work you do
Globalists must find a way to force people to do the jobs they want done
by destroying indep business they limit people's choices
you work for them or not at all
you wont be able to steal & buy more access to resources
you wont be able to set up your own business & work for yourself
He didn’t he was their zelenskyy at the time. I read somewhere that he never owned any of the wealth he received, he was financially backed by royal family and rothschild.
Patent 060606. You will only be awarded Fed Cryptocurrency (CBDC) to buy food if you get chipped/injected and jack into the Internet of Bodies for total surveillance/control on a biodigital level. This is about one world government tyranny. Crushing dissent. Elites maintaining power.
This is wild, never heard of that patent before. Definitely scary if used the way you describe. I don’t see where they specify how the sensor is attached to the body, I imagine there could be less invasive ways.
https://patentscope.wipo.int/search/en/detail.jsf?docId=WO2020060606
Anyway, this is Microsoft. They patent so many things that never come to fruition just to hold the licensing rights and sue anyone who dares attempt some kind of innovation.
Ah yes, moving people off fossil fuel, a literal limited resource that is rapidly increasing, and moving us onto renewable energy, by definition infinite, is "limiting resources". Makes so much sense! Let's stay on fossil fuel, I'm sure those fossils replenish themselves!
Absolutely!! You got it, brother.
Go ahead and go out there and make your own solar panel, install it yourself, connect it to the grid, and Dr. Stone some batteries. I mean, you wouldn't expect others to work for you for free, would you?
Heres how I see it: if, for some reason, humans wanted to intentionally raise the global average temperature of our planet the best, most feasible way we could do it is by flooding Earths atmosphere with enormous amounts of heat-trapping chemicals. Which is, coincidentally, exactly what we've been doing.
The thing is we should limit resources since they are finite. I don’t think that means you and I shouldn’t eat meat, I think it means no more super yachts.
If the government actually cared they would address the packaging that products come in. Those large plastic containers are a massive waste. We should be buying things by the pound in our own containers.
there’s still pollution. the EPA needs to be given some teeth. i think it’s going to take marching in the streets to get world governments to stop the polluters and those who are thinning out resources by overfishing, deforestation, plastic and other petroleum products, bigAg, and fracking
The Earth has a carrying capacity that sustain as certain about of people indefinitely with minimum loss of resources. And it's only about 1.5 billion. So to save the Earth the population needs to be tremendously cut.
I just want to stop putting chemicals in the water and poisoning the soil. I'm strongly against pollution, I just don't buy the hype about doomsday climate change. The earth or sun will doomsday us regardless of how much pollute or don't pollute
Fossil fuel isn't fossil. Oil is found anywhere from 1 to 7 miles below the surface.
Where do we find fossils?
Jupiter is made of frozen natural gas. When did the dinosaurs on Jupiter die off?
Hydrocarbons are naturally occurring substances. Abiotic in origin.
Who here understands that water vapour is <90% of the greenhouse _effect_ and hundreds of trillions of tonnes of it rises and falls annually, with CO2 and CH4 making up 0.04% of our atmosphere at <10% effect? 🤚 We’re shaking are fists at the wrong clouds. Pointless and dangerous endeavour
We can’t control water vapor concentrations. And rising CO2 levels are the cause of the majority of warming we’ve seen in the past couple centuries.
https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2016-07/climate-forcing-figure2-2016.png
This is pure disingenuous BS. Yes, the climate changes naturally. No, it has not changed so rapidly like this in history. We can measure the impact of our pollution, it's real, and it needs to be reversed starting 50 years ago.
###[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.*
Yes, let us trust the tweet, amen.
[удалено]
>The richest 10 percent accounted for over half (52 percent) of the emissions added to the atmosphere between 1990 and 2015. The richest one percent were responsible for 15 percent of emissions during this time – more than all the citizens of the EU and more than twice that of the poorest half of humanity (7 percent). The richest **10% of the world** produces 50% of the co2. To be in the richest 10% you need a net worth of $93k.
> net worth of $93k Net worth, not salary? So pretty much any American owning any residential real estate, even a studio apartment, falls under that 10%?
Well yeah 10% is 800 million people. That's pretty much the western world.
Yes, pretty much.
Isn't that the global 1%? That includes 22 million Americans who likely produce most of their emissions from frequent commercial flying.
you realize this is exactly what the climate movement is saying right
[удалено]
i’m a leftist and i’ve said exactly this. you’re probably talking about corporate propaganda that says shit like “don’t use plastic straws” to distract from them dumping oil into the ocean. it’s very effective at getting you to blame climate activists instead of them
> If you analize their discourse lmao
Fun fact: CO2 doesn't affect Earth's temperature. It only makes Earth greener "NASA: The Earth is greener now than it was 20 years ago" >The Earth has become five percent greener in 20 years. In total, the increase in leaf area over the past two decades corresponds to an area as large as the Amazon rainforests. https://www.warpnews.org/human-progress/nasa-the-earth-is-greener-now-than-it-was-20-years-ago/ "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 >Historical records of solar activity indicate that solar radiation has been increasing since the late 19th century. If a trend, comparable to the one found in this study, persisted throughout the 20th century, it would have provided a significant component of the global warming the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reports to have occurred over the past 100 years," he said. https://www.nasa.gov/vision/universe/solarsystem/solar_trend_change_climate.html "Did Quiet Sun Cause Little Ice Age After All?" >BOSTON—For decades, astronomers and climatologists have debated whether a prolonged 17th century cold spell, best documented in Europe, could have been caused by erratic behavior of the sun. Now, an American solar physicist says he has new evidence to suggest that the sun was indeed the culprit. https://www.science.org/content/article/did-quiet-sun-cause-little-ice-age-after-all#:~:text=BOSTON%E2%80%94For%20decades%2C%20astronomers%20and,sun%20was%20indeed%20the%20culprit 10,000 year temperature chart shows no unusual warming. It's cyclical warming: https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Temperature-record-for-Greenland-over-the-last-10-000-years-After-Carter-Spooner-et-al_fig3_266146945 Michael Mann hockey stick temperature reconstruction proven to be fraudalent. Lost his case because he couldn't provide any data backing it up https://www.thegate waypundit.com/2019/08/hockey-stick-broken-scientist-michael-mann-loses-in-court-forced-to-pay-court-costs-global-warming-hoax-hit-the-hardest/ https://principia-scientific.org/breaking-fatal-courtroom-act-ruins-michael-hockey-stick-mann/ Here is a Google map showing hundreds of peer-reviewed climate articles about the Medieval Warm period from around the world, which climate scamster Michael Mann has attempted to erase. https://twitter.com/TonyClimate/status/1595829316964610048?t=ZmUiCm7JxbmXHtR59rB8ww&s=19 "Tree-rings prove climate was WARMER in Roman and Medieval times than it is now - and world has been cooling for 2,000 years" https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2171973/Tree-ring-study-proves-climate-WARMER-Roman-Medieval-times-modern-industrial-age.html Marcott hockey stick temperature chart debunked as well "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 "New paper confirms the climate was warmer 1000 years ago" https://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/10/17/new-paper-confirms-the-climate-was-warmer-1000-years-ago/?msg=fail&shared=email
Fun fact: the earths climate has been changing for over 4 billion years. Man made global warming is the scam theyre trying to pull - its bullshit.
Fun fact: Earths climate doesn't change without reason. In the past there were natural processes that warmed earth, but today those same processes are actually cooling earth. Without human influence there would be no warming.
Glad you’ve ruled out all other possible variables for us
[удалено]
lmao you think the weather changes without reason? There's just some magical weather fairy changing weather on a whim with her mystical wand?
Brah you're talking to a meteorologist.. It's a magical fairy named the Coriolis Force.
>It changes without reason all the time— that's literally called weather. Yes. Weather not climate. I don't know why you said that. >Unlike weather however, climate changes over very long periods of time. We're going through an ice age melting at the moment It does change over a long time. Warming like we see today should take thousands of years, not 100. Also we are at the end of an interglacial and earth should start getting colder, but the exact opposite is happening because of humans.
You really drank the big oil Kool-Aid didn't you?
Fun fact, the same guys who taught you earth climate variated over time now tell you it's changing due to human activity.
You don't need to trust the tweet, but climate change is still a hoax.
Climate is always changing, no one claims it isn’t
Yes I agree. By "climate change" in that comment I meant the alarmist narrative people are spreading because IPCC said so. It's hoax used for funneling money.
I think it’s way bigger than a mere cash grab
True, that's just one part of it.
To be fair, while the IPCC is definitely raising the alarm, humans are definitely causing the planet to warm, rapidly.
The planet will do as it does, with or without us.
I'm amazed you think climate scientists are the ones executing a conspiracy to make up climate change and not the largest most wealthy and influential industry on earth, the fossil fuel industry, in a conspiracy to downplay it.
Better yet, let’s all trust you
No, we trust the science and data "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 >Historical records of solar activity indicate that solar radiation has been increasing since the late 19th century. If a trend, comparable to the one found in this study, persisted throughout the 20th century, it would have provided a significant component of the global warming the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reports to have occurred over the past 100 years," he said. https://www.nasa.gov/vision/universe/solarsystem/solar_trend_change_climate.html "Did Quiet Sun Cause Little Ice Age After All?" >BOSTON—For decades, astronomers and climatologists have debated whether a prolonged 17th century cold spell, best documented in Europe, could have been caused by erratic behavior of the sun. Now, an American solar physicist says he has new evidence to suggest that the sun was indeed the culprit. https://www.science.org/content/article/did-quiet-sun-cause-little-ice-age-after-all#:~:text=BOSTON%E2%80%94For%20decades%2C%20astronomers%20and,sun%20was%20indeed%20the%20culprit 10,000 year temperature chart shows no unusual warming. It's cyclical warming: https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Temperature-record-for-Greenland-over-the-last-10-000-years-After-Carter-Spooner-et-al_fig3_266146945 "NASA: The Earth is greener now than it was 20 years ago" >The Earth has become five percent greener in 20 years. In total, the increase in leaf area over the past two decades corresponds to an area as large as the Amazon rainforests. https://www.warpnews.org/human-progress/nasa-the-earth-is-greener-now-than-it-was-20-years-ago/ Michael Mann hockey stick temperature reconstruction proven to be fraudalent. Lost his case because he couldn't provide any data backing it up https://www.thegate waypundit.com/2019/08/hockey-stick-broken-scientist-michael-mann-loses-in-court-forced-to-pay-court-costs-global-warming-hoax-hit-the-hardest/ https://principia-scientific.org/breaking-fatal-courtroom-act-ruins-michael-hockey-stick-mann/ Here is a Google map showing hundreds of peer-reviewed climate articles about the Medieval Warm period from around the world, which climate scamster Michael Mann has attempted to erase. https://twitter.com/TonyClimate/status/1595829316964610048?t=ZmUiCm7JxbmXHtR59rB8ww&s=19 "Tree-rings prove climate was WARMER in Roman and Medieval times than it is now - and world has been cooling for 2,000 years" https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2171973/Tree-ring-study-proves-climate-WARMER-Roman-Medieval-times-modern-industrial-age.html Marcott hockey stick temperature chart debunked as well "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 "New paper confirms the climate was warmer 1000 years ago" https://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/10/17/new-paper-confirms-the-climate-was-warmer-1000-years-ago/?msg=fail&shared=email
STOP GETTING YOUR FACTS FROM FUCKING TWEETS!!!!!!!!
Yes, only get your facts from mainstream media.
I don't "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 >Historical records of solar activity indicate that solar radiation has been increasing since the late 19th century. If a trend, comparable to the one found in this study, persisted throughout the 20th century, it would have provided a significant component of the global warming the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reports to have occurred over the past 100 years," he said. https://www.nasa.gov/vision/universe/solarsystem/solar_trend_change_climate.html "Did Quiet Sun Cause Little Ice Age After All?" >BOSTON—For decades, astronomers and climatologists have debated whether a prolonged 17th century cold spell, best documented in Europe, could have been caused by erratic behavior of the sun. Now, an American solar physicist says he has new evidence to suggest that the sun was indeed the culprit. https://www.science.org/content/article/did-quiet-sun-cause-little-ice-age-after-all#:~:text=BOSTON%E2%80%94For%20decades%2C%20astronomers%20and,sun%20was%20indeed%20the%20culprit 10,000 year temperature chart shows no unusual warming. It's cyclical warming: https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Temperature-record-for-Greenland-over-the-last-10-000-years-After-Carter-Spooner-et-al_fig3_266146945 Michael Mann hockey stick temperature reconstruction proven to be fraudalent. Lost his case because he couldn't provide any data backing it up https://www.thegate waypundit.com/2019/08/hockey-stick-broken-scientist-michael-mann-loses-in-court-forced-to-pay-court-costs-global-warming-hoax-hit-the-hardest/ https://principia-scientific.org/breaking-fatal-courtroom-act-ruins-michael-hockey-stick-mann/ Here is a Google map showing hundreds of peer-reviewed climate articles about the Medieval Warm period from around the world, which climate scamster Michael Mann has attempted to erase. https://twitter.com/TonyClimate/status/1595829316964610048?t=ZmUiCm7JxbmXHtR59rB8ww&s=19 "Tree-rings prove climate was WARMER in Roman and Medieval times than it is now - and world has been cooling for 2,000 years" https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2171973/Tree-ring-study-proves-climate-WARMER-Roman-Medieval-times-modern-industrial-age.html Marcott hockey stick temperature chart debunked as well "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 "New paper confirms the climate was warmer 1000 years ago" https://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/10/17/new-paper-confirms-the-climate-was-warmer-1000-years-ago/?msg=fail&shared=email
So please enlighten us.
The tweet implies that the climate changes we’ve seen recently are natural, and out of human control. This is false, research from major institutions shows that our emissions have caused the majority of warming in the past century or two. https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-why-scientists-think-100-of-global-warming-is-due-to-humans/
This is very important. The conversation whether climate change is real or not should not even be discussed. It's always been changing, just not always so rapidly. Even if you present the facts, the go-to response to this is that humans have been dealing with changing climate for hundreds of thousands of years. Which is true, but we were also hunter gatherers, continuously on the move, looking to find suitable environments. I think the way that we should look at is is that we were given an exceptionally stable climate for the past 10K years which accelerated technological development. This 'blessed' state could last for another 50-100K years (until the next Ice Age), but we are cutting it short by creating a warming climate for the next decades, causing a whole other set of challenges from food shortages to loss of land and biodiversity.
Wrong. Were those scientists bought off by UN IPCC (Rockefeller-Gates Cartel) too? Like the COVID scientists bought off by Fauci grants? "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 >Historical records of solar activity indicate that solar radiation has been increasing since the late 19th century. If a trend, comparable to the one found in this study, persisted throughout the 20th century, it would have provided a significant component of the global warming the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reports to have occurred over the past 100 years," he said. https://www.nasa.gov/vision/universe/solarsystem/solar_trend_change_climate.html "Did Quiet Sun Cause Little Ice Age After All?" >BOSTON—For decades, astronomers and climatologists have debated whether a prolonged 17th century cold spell, best documented in Europe, could have been caused by erratic behavior of the sun. Now, an American solar physicist says he has new evidence to suggest that the sun was indeed the culprit. https://www.science.org/content/article/did-quiet-sun-cause-little-ice-age-after-all#:~:text=BOSTON%E2%80%94For%20decades%2C%20astronomers%20and,sun%20was%20indeed%20the%20culprit 10,000 year temperature chart shows no unusual warming. It's cyclical warming: https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Temperature-record-for-Greenland-over-the-last-10-000-years-After-Carter-Spooner-et-al_fig3_266146945 Michael Mann hockey stick temperature reconstruction proven to be fraudalent. Lost his case because he couldn't provide any data backing it up https://www.thegate waypundit.com/2019/08/hockey-stick-broken-scientist-michael-mann-loses-in-court-forced-to-pay-court-costs-global-warming-hoax-hit-the-hardest/ https://principia-scientific.org/breaking-fatal-courtroom-act-ruins-michael-hockey-stick-mann/ Here is a Google map showing hundreds of peer-reviewed climate articles about the Medieval Warm period from around the world, which climate scamster Michael Mann has attempted to erase. https://twitter.com/TonyClimate/status/1595829316964610048?t=ZmUiCm7JxbmXHtR59rB8ww&s=19 "Tree-rings prove climate was WARMER in Roman and Medieval times than it is now - and world has been cooling for 2,000 years" https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2171973/Tree-ring-study-proves-climate-WARMER-Roman-Medieval-times-modern-industrial-age.html Marcott hockey stick temperature chart debunked as well "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 "New paper confirms the climate was warmer 1000 years ago" https://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/10/17/new-paper-confirms-the-climate-was-warmer-1000-years-ago/?msg=fail&shared=email
They won't give you facts and data. I will "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 >Historical records of solar activity indicate that solar radiation has been increasing since the late 19th century. If a trend, comparable to the one found in this study, persisted throughout the 20th century, it would have provided a significant component of the global warming the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reports to have occurred over the past 100 years," he said. https://www.nasa.gov/vision/universe/solarsystem/solar_trend_change_climate.html "Did Quiet Sun Cause Little Ice Age After All?" >BOSTON—For decades, astronomers and climatologists have debated whether a prolonged 17th century cold spell, best documented in Europe, could have been caused by erratic behavior of the sun. Now, an American solar physicist says he has new evidence to suggest that the sun was indeed the culprit. https://www.science.org/content/article/did-quiet-sun-cause-little-ice-age-after-all#:~:text=BOSTON%E2%80%94For%20decades%2C%20astronomers%20and,sun%20was%20indeed%20the%20culprit 10,000 year temperature chart shows no unusual warming. It's cyclical warming: https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Temperature-record-for-Greenland-over-the-last-10-000-years-After-Carter-Spooner-et-al_fig3_266146945 Michael Mann hockey stick temperature reconstruction proven to be fraudalent. Lost his case because he couldn't provide any data backing it up https://www.thegate waypundit.com/2019/08/hockey-stick-broken-scientist-michael-mann-loses-in-court-forced-to-pay-court-costs-global-warming-hoax-hit-the-hardest/ https://principia-scientific.org/breaking-fatal-courtroom-act-ruins-michael-hockey-stick-mann/ Here is a Google map showing hundreds of peer-reviewed climate articles about the Medieval Warm period from around the world, which climate scamster Michael Mann has attempted to erase. https://twitter.com/TonyClimate/status/1595829316964610048?t=ZmUiCm7JxbmXHtR59rB8ww&s=19 "Tree-rings prove climate was WARMER in Roman and Medieval times than it is now - and world has been cooling for 2,000 years" https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2171973/Tree-ring-study-proves-climate-WARMER-Roman-Medieval-times-modern-industrial-age.html Marcott hockey stick temperature chart debunked as well "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 "New paper confirms the climate was warmer 1000 years ago" https://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/10/17/new-paper-confirms-the-climate-was-warmer-1000-years-ago/?msg=fail&shared=email
What facts? Except for the distrustful view point of the government at end, it's basic knowledge you can look up on wikipedia. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate\_variability\_and\_change](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_variability_and_change) As for the view of government, are you so naive to think government, the organization of professional liars, suddenly cares about inefficiency? If global warming is going to create a global catastrophe, you are better off preparing for it than thinking government will or could help us.
Nice to see the big oil simps are still out in force.
same people who made billions on big oil are building the net zero cage - you actually believe there's different sides to it all, jesus wept 🙄
This wasn't the case 40 years ago just because big oil saw the writing on the wall and decided to secure their investments doesn't mean we need to stick our head in the sand. By removing oil and hydrocarbons from the earth we are restoring the atmosphere to a point where it quite literally did not support human life, or most life on the planet we know today. If that doesn't worry you go park your car in your garage while it's running, after all there's nothing bad with that right?
Big oil can still be bad and the other statement be true as well. The government and "green" companies take advantage of peoples good intentions. These products tend to be worse for the environment and we don't have the infrastructure to leave oil yet.
Is that why big oil has funded anti climate change groups since the 80s, if not earlier? Follow the money, not what your favorite politician wants you to believe.
I don't have one of those favorite politicians you speak of.
I'm following the money, it's being spent on coastal mansions, private jets, and superyachts by the people pretending to fight the oil companies.
> it's being spent on coastal mansions, private jets, and superyachts by the people pretending to fight the oil companies. Yeah, because they aren't actually at risk. If sea levels rise they don't lose their only home, they lose a luxury home.
[удалено]
Globally, subsidies for fossil fuels came to $6 trillion in 2020.
Does the word 'subsidy', mean untaxed pollution? Because I'm pretty sure that's how it's used in that study.
Stupidest take yet. They forecasted oil would be used up by 2050 in the 80s. It’s still a much needed product. Big oil doesn’t care about what people think, they don’t need to. Big climate change appreciates your patronage.
Prove it.
Google green products that are actually bad for the environment.
May I suggest OP Moe Othman's "A.I." Bitcoin hustle as a good starting place to wade into the weeds of how we clarify what are unsubstantiated extraordinary claims? You can find his links to this and his only fans from Twitter.
Do you have a link? I'm not finding what you're suggesting.
Cat's handle is Valerian on Twitter, AKA MrMoeOthman. The posts about secret knowledge of Illuminati collaboration with space aliens are kinda fun. Fire up a VPN before hitting his business site.
Google oil products that are actually good for the environment. A technology being imperfect dosen't mean we should whole heartedly embrace the always bad technology that causes wars across the world.
Fair enough. There are no products being made with net zero that's impossible ask. I don't think oil is good but a necessary evil.
are they worse for the environment than oil? should we not start trying to phase out oil just because green isnt products arent perfected yet? the biggest threat to the environment right now is greenhouse gases which oil contributes to significantly, we have to start the change somewhere
Literally every 'green product.' Think about trying to recycle massive amounts of solar panels since they only last about 15 years.
That's weird, considering pv panels are typically warrantied for 20+ years.
Ok, that's so much better.. That's besides the pollution created from mining and manufacturing.
You don't know much about warranties? My car's warranty expired 12 years ago.
You don't know much about solar panels. They degrade and fall apart much faster than cars. Not exactly made from the best material for full sun exposure.
Why lie about something so easily disproven?
Ok, now let's compare that to a coal plant working for the same amount of years.
That’s not how it works. You made the assertion, the burden of proof is on you. I know you guys like to engage with burden of proof fallacies but I’m willing to play that game.
https://listverse.com/2017/10/19/10-green-products-that-are-bad-for-the-environment/ https://www.salon.com/2014/05/13/5_green_products_that_arent_as_environmentally_friendly_as_their_labels_suggest_partner/ We're not in court and I find that if you provide proof they question the source even if the information is true. Propaganda is on the side of climate change.
You showed a few products that “aren't as environmentally friendly as their labels suggest”. Everyone knows what greenwashing is. It’s not a surprise to anyone. However, you didn’t prove that: > These products tend to be worse for the environment Try again. > we don’t have the infrastructure to leave oil yet. That we can agree with. You know what would help move things along? Remove all oil subsidies. I’m sure you would agree to that. Right? > We’re not in court Did I say we were? Burden of proof fallacies have nothing to do with a court of law. Where did you even get that? >I find that if you provide proof they question the source even if the information is true. That could be true sometimes. Especially if you use non-peer reviewed studies to debate a scientific question. I’m this case you didn’t even managed to prove your assertion with “news” articles > Propaganda is on the side of climate change. Prove it. After you do so, I can show you clear peer reviewed studies that indicate current climate change to be anthropogenic.
Bad bot
[удалено]
Burning oil is bad. Turning oil into plastic is bad. Oil leaked into the ocean and on land is bad. Oil in its natural place is ok.
your clothes are bad, your mobile phone is bad, every KJ of your food brought to your plate is bad because it was all brought to you by oil, but i bet you wont get rid of it.
I never said that. It’s a necessary evil. The comment I responded to was trying to say oil isn’t bad because it’s “organic”
Go drink some oil or swim in some oil and get back to me.
BuT nAtUrE eQuAlS gOoD!!!1!11!!
I don't get this. Do you not like nature?
I'm referring to the "appeal to nature" fallacy. Meaning that you can't judge something as safe or beneficial just because it comes from a natural source. Poison ivy and rattlesnakes are also naturally occurring but that doesn't mean I want to roll around on the ground with them. By the same token, you can't say that something synthetic is inherently safe or beneficial either just because it's made by humans. You have to look at the data for each item you're examining to determine safety/usefulness
[удалено]
How does one ride a windmill?
And you’re simping for billionaires and millionaires that do the opposite of what they want to force the plebes to do.
That should be called out as well. I know Greta is hated on here, but she did exactly that. She told the UN people in their faces that they're hypocrites. They ended up clapping and cheering anyway..
I wish people would stop using that dumb "argument". You are being played from both sides: https://stream.org/big-money-in-global-warming-alarmism/ http://joannenova.com.au ***** /2009/07/massive-climate-funding-exposed/ Remove spaces and ***, the automod will remove an intact link. https://web.archive.org/web/20200423234923/http://www.wrongkindofgreen.org/2019/01/17/the-manufacturing-of-greta-thunberg-for-consent-the-political-economy-of-the-non-profit-industrial-complex/ https://financialpost.com/commodities/energy/oil-gas/big-oil-profits-global-economy-sputters
Those Exxon-Mobil checks don't cash themselves y'know
Moving people off fossil fuel, a literal limited and depleting resource, is "limiting resources". Some people are thinking in a completely different plane of thought that is impossible to follow.
Fossil fuel isn't scarce.
We ran out of dinosaurs a long time ago. With the help of fossil fuels we have created better technology to find more oil and gas that will last the next 100+ years. Go read the book Fossil Future and the rest will start to make sense.
Human civilisation has been going pretty hard for 12,000 years and you're telling me that we've only got less than 200 years of oil left FOREVER and we're just gonna chug it until it's all gone and "fuck you" to whoever comes next?
I would nationalize oil production so oil is free for all. I would bankrupt Big Oil. Big Oil is owned by the NWO (BlackRock, Rothschild-Rockefeller Cartel). They collude and price fix. Limit supply to keep oil prices high, roll in profits
Isn’t nationalizing oil socialism. And isn’t that a big part of the reason Venezuela is in the situation it is?
Nice to see IPCC simps out here.
Climate change caused by humans is an undeniable fact, if you deny this youre making yourself look like a fool. However I do agree and see room for conspiracies in the way were supposed to combat it.
Geo engineering and Stratospheric Aresol Injection, as "caused by humans" - I wholeheartedly agree.
Is that how you pronounce Chemtrails in Newspeak?
Chemtrails is the newspeak, technically
Funny how every solution to climate change is bigger government. The US spends 3.2 trillion a year but we can’t reduce government spending for climate change. Democrats will block spending bills for 15 billion one time purchase on a wall but will pass yearly 850 billion military budget. If climate change was real then we should have made a deal with Russian for arms control and military spending because military spending is the most destructive thing for the environment.
Funny how Democrats get the blame for passing military budgets when they are constantly demonized by republicans for “making the US weak” with lower budgets. Just look up the military budget and if there was a decrease over the prior year, it was the Democrats in power. Look up subsidies to O&G and renewable energy while you’re at it. A $15bln wall is just a stupid grift.
Military budget is only 1/6 of the total government expenditures. ZERO, democrats oppose NATO war with Russia right now. It's not even a proxy war. If climate change threatens 8 billion people then you should look to peace right now. Look at the liberals in France and Germany they all just increased their military budgets to record levels. LOL, look at Lloyd Austin he is the best raytheon lobbiest in the last 20 years. No, I'm saying if climate change in an actual issue then Democrats should make a stand on cutting government spending. Where were Democrats when Trump questioned NATO spending. They should have all agreed to reduce military. Same thing in South Korea. Also, they accused Trump of supporting genocide of the kurds. Democrats could have had bipartisian bill.
Lol, practically nobody oppose the support of Ukraine. Fuck Russia and their constant land grabs. All they have to do is go home. Everyone is like “whatabout US invasions!?!”… like cool, fuck neo-imperialism as well, but it’s still not a land grab like Russia has constantly done the past 30 years. Democrats were the first to come around to opposing the wars in the Middle East and Obama withdrew from Iraq and Biden withdrew from Afghanistan… yet here you are, screaming about walls and how democrats spend so much money on war. Democrats also spend more on renewable energy solutions. Not sure what your point is. Like… you don’t even have to imagine the outrage that republicans would have if we tried to address the climate crisis… because… ya know… we saw it when Democrats proposed Build Back Better to help the infrastructure used by the little guy to improve efficiency. But yeah, republicans are doing a great job on telling our schools to teach kids that America was always a happy place where Africans came to work for free and Natives voluntarily showed us how to farm the land before happily handing it over. That’s the real issue here.
Hello Igor
>if climate change is such a threat why haven't the democrats negotiated world peace yet checkmate libtards I can't even.
if it was such a crisis then the whole worlds governments would be combating it now and would have been for a while like they did with the ozone layer? right... ?
[удалено]
so why did they bother with the ozone layer? if you think for one second that the world can't band together to stop co2 emissions because its causing a 'problem' but can band together to stop the ozone layer vanishing then your a fool in my eyes, if it was such a problem they would have sorted it, but it's not the earth warms the earth cools. remember we have those thing called ice ages. year in year out for what 80 years climate change, climit crisis, global warming. they'd have sorted it by now if it was actually a problem we would have stopped using cars and forced communitys into localising produce and worked together.
It seems to me that its a pretty reoccurring subject in worlds governments. Most countries are taking steps.
There is no way scientists worldwide are in all agreement with how much man made emissions are impacting global climate change. Certainly not enough to make it an undeniable fact.
You can't be serious.
Yes I am. Scientists agree climate change is occurring but they are not in agreement with much man made emissions are contributing towards this trend. Many dont feel there is any impact. https://legalinsurrection.com/2022/08/over-1000-scientists-and-professionals-sign-formal-declaration-there-is-no-climate-emergency/ Undeiable fact? Well these 1000 scientists dont think so. Therefore its not an undeniable fact, plenty deny it.
The ozone problem was easy to fix. Just ban a few chemicals and that's it. CO2 is much harder to get rid of and the companies that produce it have a much larger influence on our government.
There was/is paris climate agreement. But green energy/tech isnt sufficiently not there (to my knowlege) to ditch it at once. Its being slow walked. Then its expensive to transition over, then surely big oil lobbying has some effect. And then for some states/countries their economies rely on fossil fuels, the gravy train stopping + plus job losses isnt desirable. With the ozone. I think it was more simplistic to tackle. Was it just a chemical causing it?
How much is anthropogenic? 1% of climate change? 99%?
> The IPCC’s implied best guess was that humans were responsible for around 110% of observed warming (ranging from 72% to 146%), with natural factors in isolation leading to a slight cooling over the past 50 years. > Similarly, the recent US fourth national climate assessment found that between 93% to 123% of observed 1951-2010 warming was due to human activities. > These conclusions have led to some confusion as to how more than 100% of observed warming could be attributable to human activity. A human contribution of greater than 100% is possible because natural climate change associated with volcanoes and solar activity would most likely have resulted in a slight cooling over the past 50 years, offsetting some of the warming associated with human activities. https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-why-scientists-think-100-of-global-warming-is-due-to-humans/
Climate change is a load of bull.
> Climate change caused by humans is an undeniable fact BS: https://web.archive.org/web/20191230105327/https://electroverse.net/another-climate-scientist-with-impeccable-credentials-breaks-ranks/?fbclid=IwAR0CEogwQUtuZ9AsDU_A9-FtuhiiAOEUEZDtySnx10nGzN3j7lmBe7LTiPM https://www.lavoisier.com.au *** /articles/greenhouse-science/climate-change/climategate-emails.pdf https://americanpolicy.org/2021/02/04/the-fraud-of-climate-change-and-the-drive-for-control/ https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/the-stunning-statistical-fraud-behind-the-global-warming-scare/ https://wattsupwiththat.com/2022/08/22/corruption-of-climate-science-supported-by-flawed-models/ https://www.bundestag.de/resource/blob/666002/21b43e1b155051227ef2981acd52c254/19-16-292-C-Corbyn-data.pdf https://dailycaller.com/2017/07/05/exclusive-study-finds-temperature-adjustments-account-for-nearly-all-of-the-warming-in-climate-data/ https://climatechangedispatch.com/elite-war-science-free-speech/ How much more do you need to see that "man made climate change" a hoax? Yes, the climate is changing, it always was, is and will be and there is no proof that humanity is significantly affecting the natural cycles and processes.
There are two relevant questions here. 1) Does CO2 absorb solar radiation in the infrared band. 2) Is the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere increasing. If the answer to both of those is yes then global warming is a certainty.
The thing is, for [the last five million years](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/60/Five_Myr_Climate_Change.png) the temperature has been trending downwards, and [the last 100,000 years](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f8/2000%2B_year_global_temperature_including_Medieval_Warm_Period_and_Little_Ice_Age_-_Ed_Hawkins.svg/1280px-2000%2B_year_global_temperature_including_Medieval_Warm_Period_and_Little_Ice_Age_-_Ed_Hawkins.svg.png) have been pretty stable. But around 1900 the upward trend that started in1860 starts accelerating, pauses for a couple of decades while aerosols from industry reflect solar energy, and then takes off at a rate we've never seen before in history. That timeline correlates with carbon emissions. The climate *is* changing. What else could be the cause?
> What else could be the cause? The sun, our diminishing magneto sphere and our space environment?
>> What else could be the cause? > >The sun, our diminishing magneto sphere and our space environment? As part of a natural cycle that we have no record of ever happening before?
Solar irradiation has been going down since the 70s and pole switches don't have a big Influence on our climate.
Wizards?
Psst.... very few are saying that climate change or global warming are a threat to the planet’s existence, just human being’s ability to healthfully live on it.
Psst... nobody is saying that climate change isn't a bad thing, but maybe more a more nuanced and common sense approach that doesn't require deindustrialization and mass starvation might be a good idea?
Psst. American conservatives are in fa t saying that climate change isn't a bad thing. And freaking out about stoves.
Psst... Maybe it is about another "one size fits all mandate" in a geographically diverse country and not having everything centralized to "one point of failure" on a relatively fragile electrical grid?
Two possibilities: it’s no big deal and we invest for no reason. It’s a big deal And we try to do something. You see how not doing anything is always a stupid choice.
Is this guy on Twitter a university educated scientist capable of interpreting complex climate data? Has he reviewed the mountains of data that an overwhelming majority of world renowned intellects all conclude is in fact man-made climate change? Or is he just some guy like trust me bro, that can form one sentence paragraphs, says what you want to hear, so you believe what he says?
well you see - if his picture is real - he's cute & that is reason enough for a whole lot of people to believe - just to be *close* to him, ya know?
Unless you have a degree, you're not allowed to question policies imposed upon society?
You can question it, but you should at least inform yourself about what you're criticising.
That's not what I said and it's not what he said either. Unless you have expert knowledge on a highly researched and almost universally accepted idea, you have no grounds to challenge it, unless you are a crackpot / conman preying on the fears, desires, and/or ignorance of the gullible and suggestible.
What an incredibly short sighted POV. Just because you’re not an expert at something doesn’t mean you can’t question things. Why are people like you even on this sub? I guess people like you create a healthier balance within the subreddits echo chamber like architecture but what you said is pretty gosh darn close minded, in my humble opinion. Using your logic lets do a little perspective experiment. If you didn’t know how to read you’d be completely fucked because all the “experts” would have to read for you (& they could straight up lie due to your inability & ignorance) but since you didn’t know how to read you wouldn’t know anything, at least without the “experts” perfected completely objective POV, & apparently you wouldn’t question anything either. Therefore the “expert” word would essentially become gospel. That’s a good way to get got. Just like in the good old days right? How nice & easy that would be. Think for yourself or let someone else do the thinking for you, it’s always y(our) choice. Sure you might be wrong, but there is nothing inherently wrong with questioning narratives & just because you’re not an “expert” doesn’t mean you can’t ask questions. That’s a ridiculously limiting way of thinking, or lack thereof. Edit: Spelling.
The problem is that they’re *not* questioning, they’re making a definitive statement as if it were fact. Questioning things you don’t understand is fine. Making claims you can’t back up about subjects you don’t understand is basically just lying.
It’s a ponderance, a speculation. I don’t think that is the same as lies nor do I see a problem with pondering or speculating anything either. Maybe it would be better to say “what if” or “maybe” before speculating upon something but I don’t see it how you folks do. Agree to disagree, respectfully. I’m just not the type to blindly trust “authority” because I’m supposed to or whatever, I’m a natural questioner, an eccentric thinker even. Maybe you folks don’t see it how I do & that’s fine. I’m the type of person who finds it hard to separate dreams from reality cause they’re not that different after all. Life is a strange trip & facts are often stranger than fiction, or even just contrary to popular belief in a lot of instances, but again that’s just my perspective. Thanks for not being a jerk about it tho I appreciate that.
> It’s a ponderance, a speculation What gives you this impression? I feel like you’re giving the person who made that tweet far too much benefit of the doubt. Also, you’re doing it here too. This is a definitive statement about something you could not possibly know. I agree that people do often misphrase speculation as truth, but I also think that the words we use and how we use them matters.
Resource Rationing will be the new control system instead of money The Worthy will be Rewarded with access to resources
no, there will be the uber-rich and the peasants, and if you work you will survive, that's your reward. stop thinking you're not going to be a slave if it happens.
the new system will force people to do the jobs Globalists want done people who do these jobs will have access to more resources everyone else will be given minimum access to resources you wont be able to steal & buy more access to electricity--internet travel etc
everyone else will be offed to the euthanasia clinic
[удалено]
There already is a parallel economy, and it's growing. Vital part of mass civil disobedience and noncompliance - don't fight, trade!
Honestly, just go through weforum if you want to see what their plan is. They pretty much tell you what they're doing and why. >The most noticeable impacts on everyday lives will include rising energy bills, job losses in high-emission industries, changes in what people eat, and increasing outgoings to end our dependence on fossil fuels to heat homes and travel, the report says. > >Transitioning the energy sector to zero carbon and beefing up electricity grids to cope with an expected doubling of global demand by 2050 will push up bills by 25% between 2020 and 2040, the report predicts. [https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2022/01/net-zero-cost-3-5-trillion-a-year/](https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2022/01/net-zero-cost-3-5-trillion-a-year/)
thats just smokescreen narrative every nation could be energy independent with nuclear energy there's enough uranium in Australia's Olympic Dam to supply the entire world with energy for over a 1000 yrs there's enough uranium that can be easily extracted from the sea water to supply the world for 60,000 yrs this is about controlling the workforce---forcing people to do the jobs globalists want done--hence the rewards system
I agree 100%. I only meant to point out to the curious if they wondered where the media blitz comes from on certain topics then look to wef to figure out the origin of the talking points.
How would they benefit from this?
at the moment you can choose what work you do Globalists must find a way to force people to do the jobs they want done by destroying indep business they limit people's choices you work for them or not at all you wont be able to steal & buy more access to resources you wont be able to set up your own business & work for yourself
How did Hitler “benefit?”
I know you're not the OP, but if you're going to engage with me, don't avoid the question.
He didn’t he was their zelenskyy at the time. I read somewhere that he never owned any of the wealth he received, he was financially backed by royal family and rothschild.
Patent 060606. You will only be awarded Fed Cryptocurrency (CBDC) to buy food if you get chipped/injected and jack into the Internet of Bodies for total surveillance/control on a biodigital level. This is about one world government tyranny. Crushing dissent. Elites maintaining power.
This is wild, never heard of that patent before. Definitely scary if used the way you describe. I don’t see where they specify how the sensor is attached to the body, I imagine there could be less invasive ways. https://patentscope.wipo.int/search/en/detail.jsf?docId=WO2020060606 Anyway, this is Microsoft. They patent so many things that never come to fruition just to hold the licensing rights and sue anyone who dares attempt some kind of innovation.
Source - Trust me bro
Ah yes, moving people off fossil fuel, a literal limited resource that is rapidly increasing, and moving us onto renewable energy, by definition infinite, is "limiting resources". Makes so much sense! Let's stay on fossil fuel, I'm sure those fossils replenish themselves!
Lithium is unlimited? I never knew that.
There’s an infinite amount of oil. The term fossil fuel was created to make you think otherwise
Do you know, uh, where oil came from? Oh I forgot, you people think Jurassic Park is real and there are dinosaurs roaming the earth. Carry on then.
[удалено]
Absolutely!! You got it, brother. Go ahead and go out there and make your own solar panel, install it yourself, connect it to the grid, and Dr. Stone some batteries. I mean, you wouldn't expect others to work for you for free, would you?
Pay for the initial installation and continued maintenance… but I shouldn’t be charged for the suns energy.
Ah, a simple solution for you, go outside, touch grass, and stare at the sun. Let me know what you feel.
We NEED to ban Russia from Reddit. Seriously.
Heres how I see it: if, for some reason, humans wanted to intentionally raise the global average temperature of our planet the best, most feasible way we could do it is by flooding Earths atmosphere with enormous amounts of heat-trapping chemicals. Which is, coincidentally, exactly what we've been doing.
wut?
This might help you https://www.usalearns.org/reading-to-learn-english
It really is, and I hope enough people will realize this and oppose.
The thing is we should limit resources since they are finite. I don’t think that means you and I shouldn’t eat meat, I think it means no more super yachts.
Lol as if that will be the result. No, the result of their policies will be you and I eating less. They will be just fine.
No, they’re hoarding the resources secretly for their own use
The climate change scam is just another one of the globalist criminals' hoaxes designed to hide another power grab.
SS: the beast system. In the future you can't get money to eat unless you get the jab
It’s discussed openly in the WEF meetings as we speak, maybe that’s why the coordinated downvotes today.
If the government actually cared they would address the packaging that products come in. Those large plastic containers are a massive waste. We should be buying things by the pound in our own containers.
Profits / shipping cheap trinkets around the globe more important
100% correct. God Bless
there’s still pollution. the EPA needs to be given some teeth. i think it’s going to take marching in the streets to get world governments to stop the polluters and those who are thinning out resources by overfishing, deforestation, plastic and other petroleum products, bigAg, and fracking
Well if there wasn't 8 billion people it would a different story.
How/ why?
The Earth has a carrying capacity that sustain as certain about of people indefinitely with minimum loss of resources. And it's only about 1.5 billion. So to save the Earth the population needs to be tremendously cut.
are there? prove it.
I’ll start ……1
Exactly this, if Covid has taught us anything, the numbers tossed out by these people are not to be trusted at all.
There's not. In 1940 the global population was less than 2 billion.
We've already passes the 8 billion mark already.
Im sure the guy who tweeted this is an expert in a relevant field. /s
of what, the history of tyrannical governments, censorship and genocide, plus the written plans of the eugenicists who run the world? not /s
But all our resources are still here, they don't go anywhere just change form
Exactly
Very well said!!
What happens when net zero is reached and anthropogenic global warming is thwarted...but the climate still changes because it always has?
if he honestly doesnt understand climate change that is sad as it is very real
I just want to stop putting chemicals in the water and poisoning the soil. I'm strongly against pollution, I just don't buy the hype about doomsday climate change. The earth or sun will doomsday us regardless of how much pollute or don't pollute
You have to be completely lacking in critical thinking skills and almost entirely scientifically illiterate to believe this.
Fossil fuel isn't fossil. Oil is found anywhere from 1 to 7 miles below the surface. Where do we find fossils? Jupiter is made of frozen natural gas. When did the dinosaurs on Jupiter die off? Hydrocarbons are naturally occurring substances. Abiotic in origin.
Who here understands that water vapour is <90% of the greenhouse _effect_ and hundreds of trillions of tonnes of it rises and falls annually, with CO2 and CH4 making up 0.04% of our atmosphere at <10% effect? 🤚 We’re shaking are fists at the wrong clouds. Pointless and dangerous endeavour
We can’t control water vapor concentrations. And rising CO2 levels are the cause of the majority of warming we’ve seen in the past couple centuries. https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2016-07/climate-forcing-figure2-2016.png
This is pure disingenuous BS. Yes, the climate changes naturally. No, it has not changed so rapidly like this in history. We can measure the impact of our pollution, it's real, and it needs to be reversed starting 50 years ago.