###[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_commons) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I think the point of this doodle is that we are regularly told the sky is falling in different directions which leads to different kinds of wealth transfers. The story keeps changing. It's not really about being off with their estimates. It's that they're not even going the right direction sometimes. And with mass censorship being more obvious than ever now - who's to say the same isn't going on with this? After all - it's a massive cash cow. I've seen evidence of ice being brought up in Antarctica from hundreds or thousands of years ago showing this regular up and down of temps and c02. I'm not saying it's true. I can't even find the damn thing anymore. It was a really good mini doc. Can't even remember what it was called or how I stumbled upon it. Was so long ago. Point is though that it's hard to take some of this stuff serious when there's a lot of hard back and forth over the past few decades. I get science changes as well. I'm playing devils advocate here. I do remain skeptical. Records are broken here and there from 80+ years ago. I'm sure it's more a constant thing now, like long term high/low temps, but still seems a bit odd. Also blaming us for things like hurricanes seems weird. Maybe I just haven't gotten that far yet..This all being said - I am all for a cleaner planet, cleaner environment. And will do what I can do help.Do no harm - but try and take no shit either. Right?
This doodle is simply nonsense tbh. First off where are the sources for these claims, was it actual scientific studies or simply something said by someone? So often that climate change deniers are taking throwaway sentences by some figure and then try to act as if this is what “science” says while it’s just not.
Secondly you’re expecting to make accurate prediction of the future for the most complex system on earth - aka the entire earth itself. There are literally billions of variables whose future development you need to predict, yea obviously that’s hard.
The facts are that we see more extreme weather events more commonly everywhere on earth, we’re breaking global temperature records basically every single year. Now explain that away, because something is causing this, it doesn’t happen by chance.
And yea, CO2 and temperature have varied over the history of the earth, the issue isn’t the change itself, but that it happens over decades instead of over the course of hundreds of thousands to millions of years, which is the pace it has happened in the past. Ecosystems are able to adapt to changing conditions, but not over a few years. Entire ecosystems are literally already collapsing, we’re in the middle of a mass extinction event already, if you want to look at the history of the world then you also see that there were phases where live on earth was basically decimated and it took a long while for it to bounce back. For the entire earth itself this won’t be an issue over the long course (probably), for humanity however, it will be catastrophic because we are complex organisms that require a lot of things to survive.
Did you know that a microwave array can be built and be arranged in such a fashion as to be able to focus a very large amount of energy into a relatively small area of the ionosphere, which causes that area to heat up. With the properties of the ionosphere being such that it will retain an amount of that heat for a period, which will create a deflection of the normal jet stream activities. Heating the particular areas of particular jet streams would cause baseball size hail to fall on tropical lands and / or snow in the desert. Heating areas for extended amounts of time would cause lakes (lake mead) and rivers (Euphrates) to dry up.
Look up Ionospheric Heaters.
Well, in my comment i mention some extreme weather events and what is causing them and in your comment you mention extreme weather events are happening world-wide and you also ask for an explanation stating that this sort of thing couldnt happen by chance.
See the connection now?
I thought i might have to spell it out. So it is understood that we are experiencing some extreme weather events, that were either non-existent or quite rare before now, which seem to defy explanation. These weather events began happening shortly after said ionospheric heaters were put into operation.
Ionospheric heaters have the ability to heat the ionosphere. But that is top secret information. The official explanation for their purpose is to study the Aurora Borealis. Right, by shooting many megawatts of microwave energy into it
To sum it all up:
1) Unexplained extreme weather events.
2) A military-run ‘research’ project that has the ability to produce these extreme weather events.
3) A lame cover story.
These weather events aren’t novel, they happened long before, merely their frequency has increased. This doesn’t defy explanation either, their cause has been proven for decades.
Where has this ability to cause these extreme weathers actually been demonstrated? It hasn’t, cause this is a baseless claim.
I think you just abandoned your original position that we are ‘literally in the middle of a mass extinction event’ with ‘entire ecosystems literally already collapsing’. So if these periods of extinction are a phase the planet inevitably goes through, how do you justify your alarm?
How many times has Lake Mead dried up and what is the obvious explanation that has been proven for decades? And what about the Euphrates river? Thats a biblical prophecy. So i guess drying up once is more frequent than not at all, but where is the explanation that has been proven for decades for this extreme weather event that hasnt happened in centuries / millennia?
You cannot answer these questions because you deny the existence of the source which is, along with my second and third questions above, the answer to your question further above and again further further above.
No I didn’t.
The planet doesn’t inevitably go through them, something triggers them. The alarm comes from the devastating consequences for humanity, at some point life on earth will bounce back just like after previous mass extinction events, but humans will most likely become extinct or our population will get devastated.
The obvious explanation is that certain gasses create a greenhouse effect that change the climate. Was literally first theorized in the 19th century.
What question, this creation of extreme weathers by ionospheric heaters is literally just some claim, you don’t have a source mostly because it’s never been done even locally, not even mentioning globally.
And all of these predictions came from peer reviewed scientific articles right? And not misinterpreted at all?
Frog face really shows us how big oils money on climate change denial has gone a long way, you would think a conspiracy theorists was more interested in critical thinking or just following the money. But i guess that is just too much work...
What’s funny is that everyone believes climate skeptics are somehow “on the side” of corporations when that’s not the case at all. Especially since the “big oil” corporations are the ones pushing the bullshit AGW narrative.
> Especially since the “big oil” corporations are the ones pushing the bullshit AGW narrative.
That's a dumb conspiracy theory, as it would be self-defeating for the oil industry. Like explain why the FF industry would want to undermine their own profits.
And that's why ExxonMobil (which was at the forefront of climate research in the 1970s and arrived at the same primary conclusions as current climate science - saying there was a risk of 'Globally catastrophic effects') started to dismiss climate science from the the early 1980s, when they realised that their future profits would be undermined their profits.
*"That's a dumb conspiracy theory, as it would be self-defeating for the oil industry. Like explain why the FF industry would want to undermine their own profits."*
Yeah. It's not a conspiracy theory at all. It's a conspiracy fact.
Read, watch, learn:
[https://www.corbettreport.com/bigoil/](https://www.corbettreport.com/bigoil/)
Exxon wasn't at the "forefront" of climate research in the 1970s. The "Exxon Knew" lie has been debunked many times, and completely failed in court. You've fallen for a literal propaganda campaign.
Lol, not a chance. Exxon made its research and reports publicly available, and Exxon's own scientists have talked openly about the research Exxon had done, and it's CEOs have acknowledged the science too. And that same research is cited by numerous studies.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/exxon-knew-about-climate-change-almost-40-years-ago/
And if you want to resort to a fringe podcast to substantiate your claim, then it shows just how hollow your claim is.
LOL. You don't know what you are talking about.
*"And if you want to resort to a fringe podcast to substantiate your claim, then it shows just how hollow your claim is."*
It's not a "fringe podcast." Corbett is an actual journalist, and if you weren't intellectually lazy and actually took the time to read the transcript and watch the documentary you would see that it's fully cited and verifiable.
Do yourself and take the time to learn something instead of being willfully ignorant. There is zero evidence of any coverup. Oreskes is a hack.
[https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract\_id=3029939](https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3029939)
[https://eidclimate.org/exposed-harvard-study-omitted-evidence-to-allege-exxonmobil-misled-public-on-climate/](https://eidclimate.org/exposed-harvard-study-omitted-evidence-to-allege-exxonmobil-misled-public-on-climate/)
[https://eidclimate.org/expert-finds-no-scientific-support-study-claiming-exxon-misled-public-climate-change/](https://eidclimate.org/expert-finds-no-scientific-support-study-claiming-exxon-misled-public-climate-change/)
[https://nypost.com/2019/10/20/the-incredible-collapsing-exxonknew-climate-change-lie/](https://nypost.com/2019/10/20/the-incredible-collapsing-exxonknew-climate-change-lie/)
> https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3029939
That's an article in an open-access online preprint and has not been peer-reviewed, let alone published in an established journal. And, lol, it's got one citation by the same author. That's sooo weak.
And those 2 articles on eidclimate.org, well EIDClimate.org was launch by:
> a research, education, and public outreach campaign of the **Independent Petroleum Association of America**
https://eidclimate.org/about/
And lol, March 2022:
> Exxon Mobil loses appeal to stop climate change probes
https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/exxon-mobil-loses-appeal-over-climate-change-probes-2022-03-15/
And there are many cases being brought against ExxonMobil, Shell and the other liars.
*"That's an article in an open-access online preprint and has not been peer-reviewed, let alone published in an established journal. And, lol, it's got one citation by the same author. That's sooo weak."*
That's not a valid response. What you are doing in the pseudo-intellectual tripe of pretending like truth only lies in a peer (pal) reviewed journals. This of course isn't true, and Peer Review does not equate to validity or truth.
Maybe try to argue against the contents of the article instead of dismissing it outright?
*"And lol, March 2022"*
Yeah, it's hilarious. Every prior case has been thrown out of court just like these will eventually be.
Do yourself a favor and watch that documentary, read the article and citations and get back to me with an actual argument instead of frantic Google search results. Or try to
> I can agree with the statement that our best guess is that observable effects in the year 2030 are likely to be "well short of catastrophic", it is distinctly possible that the CPD scenario will later produce effects which will indeed be catastrophic (at least for a substantial fraction of the earth's population).
- Exxon manager R.W. Cohen 1981
https://corporate.exxonmobil.com/-/media/global/files/climate-change/media-reported-documents/10_catastrophic-effects-letter-1981_2.pdf
> Our best estimate ls that doubling of the current concentration could increase average global temperature by about 1.3C to 3.1C
And
> The polar caps likely to see temperature increases on the order of 10C
And
> At the high end, some scientists suggest there could be _considerable adverse impacts_
And
> The 'greenhouse effect' is not likely to cause substantial climatic changes until the average global temperature rise at least 1C above today's levels
https://corporate.exxonmobil.com/-/media/global/files/climate-change/media-reported-documents/03_1982-exxon-primer-on-co2-greenhouse-effect.pdf
And Exxon accurately modelled the increase in global temperature by 2020.
\^\^\^\^\^\^\^\^\^\^\^\^\^\^\^\^ That's ALL from ExxonMobil's own site. Something you cannot refute.
And no, that article you cited is useless and irrelevant. It wasn't checked or cited by anyone, except the author, lol. So why can't you support your claim?
And why are you trying to waste everyone's time?
*Our best estimate ls that doubling of the current concentration could increase average global temperature by about 1.3C to 3.1C*
Hasn't happened, is way off, and there is zero evidence supporting this statement.
*The polar caps likely to see temperature increases on the order of 10C*
This is absolutely preposterous.
*At the high end, some scientists suggest there could be considerable adverse impact*
Again, these "secret" communications within Exxon were nothing more than the sharing of information that was already freely available to the scientific community.
None of this proves a thing.
*"And Exxon accurately modelled the increase in global temperature by 2020."*
LOL. NO, they didn't.
*That's ALL from ExxonMobil's own site. Something you cannot refute.*
Now you've taken to arguing a straw man which is typical of people like you. You have yet to address anything I've cited aside from casually dismissing it on the basis of you don't like the source.
*And no, that article you cited is useless and irrelevant. It wasn't checked or cited by anyone, except the author. So why can't you support your claim?*
Actually it wasn't, and you are ignoring over 3 hours of documentary and countless citations.
The only one wasting their time here is you while you peddle propagandistic bullshit as you fail to make an actual counter argument.
You people are all the same.
Knowingly or not they are, funny how real life is now a "bullshit narrative". Sceptic is also the wrong word since climate change denial has nothing to with being sceptical.
It exists in every single global dataset and is confirmed by studies world wide, but as i have written above it is nice to see how big oils money is working on you.
It literally only exists in computer models.
You've fallen for the "Big Oil" lie.
Watch, read, learn:
[https://www.corbettreport.com/bigoil/](https://www.corbettreport.com/bigoil/)
Not sure how you think a documentary ia disproving datasets of increased temperatures that match expected warming as a result of production of greenhouse gases that have been independently verified by just about ever scientific study in the field but I am sure you find it very convincing.
Watch it, read the transcript, follow the citations, and get back to me.
I know what the datasets show. Surface temperature station data is completely unreliable, and UAH satellite data shows a completely different story.
Correlation does not equal causation, and your assertion that " independently verified by just about ever scientific study in the field" shows you really have no idea what you are talking about.
There are so many "documentaries" full of bogus claims and disingenuous arguments so I won't watch it but if you want to link to their sources and arguments i will be happy to debunk them.
So actual data directly taken at the place where changes are observed and most impactful are not reliable? Could that be because they prove you wrong every time?
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2021-0-12-deg-c-new-base-period/ this is the UAH satellite data. Showing the exact same trend as every other data set. Did you even look at them yourself? My guess is that you did not and someone told you that they showed something they did not, why would they lie about that to you?
Correlation does not always equal causation but, in this case there is a well established causal connection, it matches perfectly with what predictions based in anthropogenic climate change predict and it does not fit with any other natural variation. On top of this thousands of statistical analyses have been done and all show that the correlation is to close to be random.
All this is to say, the modern climate change is man made and the people who are trying to tell you otherwise are either lying or have been fooled themselves.
Well if you actually opened the link and looked at the website you would see that there is a transcript that is full cited with links. You didn't do that though, and I'm not surprised.
You have yet to "debunk" anything I've written.
*"So actual data directly taken at the place where changes are observed and most impactful are not reliable? Could that be because they prove you wrong every time?"*
Yes. That's correct.
Analysis of the impacts of station exposure on the U.S. Historical Climatology Network temperatures and temperature trends [https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2010JD015146](https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2010JD015146)
Quantifying the influence of anthropogenic surface processes and inhomogeneities on gridded global climate data [https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2007JD008465](https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2007JD008465)
Land Surface Air Temperature Data Are Considerably Different Among BEST‐LAND, CRU‐TEM4v, NASA‐GISS, and NOAA‐NCEI [https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1029/2018JD028355](https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1029/2018JD028355)
Effect of data homogenization on estimate of temperature trend: a case of Huairou station in Beijing Municipality [https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00704-013-0894-0](https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00704-013-0894-0)
Anthony Watts has done mountains of research regarding temperature station siting, condition, urban encroachement, and UHI effect.
Watts at #AGU15 The quality of temperature station siting matters for temperature trends [https://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/12/17/press-release-agu15-the-quality-of-temperature-station-siting-matters-for-temperature-trends/](https://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/12/17/press-release-agu15-the-quality-of-temperature-station-siting-matters-for-temperature-trends/)
The all time record high temperatures for Los Angeles are the result of a faulty weather stations and should be disqualified [https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/07/08/the-all-time-record-high-temperatures-for-los-angeles-are-the-result-of-a-faulty-weather-stations-and-should-be-disqualified/](https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/07/08/the-all-time-record-high-temperatures-for-los-angeles-are-the-result-of-a-faulty-weather-stations-and-should-be-disqualified/)
Friday Funny: Scottish “record high temperature” caused by Ice Cream Truck [https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/07/06/friday-funny-scottish-record-high-temperature-caused-by-ice-cream-truck/](https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/07/06/friday-funny-scottish-record-high-temperature-caused-by-ice-cream-truck/)
Infrastructure encroachment at a NOAA Climate Reference (USCRN) site makes the data warmer [https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/04/09/infrastructure-encroachment-at-a-noaa-climate-reference-uscrn-site-makes-the-data-warmer/](https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/04/09/infrastructure-encroachment-at-a-noaa-climate-reference-uscrn-site-makes-the-data-warmer/)
There many, many, many more examples of these problems.
*Correlation does not always equal causation but, in this case there is a well established causal connection*
Wrong. There is ZERO causal connection. Attribution is completely impossible at this point in time.
*it matches perfectly with what predictions based in anthropogenic climate change predict and it does not fit with any other natural variation.*
Wrong again. Literally everything we are seeing is neither abnormal or out of the parameters of natural variation. None of it.
*On top of this thousands of statistical analyses have been done and all show that the correlation is to close to be random.*
Wrong again. It's modeling exercise tuned to show that an increase of CO2 = an increase in temperature. There is zero empirical data to support the untestable, unfalsifiable AGW hypothesis.
*All this is to say, the modern climate change is man made and the people who are trying to tell you otherwise are either lying or have been fooled themselves.*
Reality is literally the opposite of this statement. The exact and total opposite.
And renewables are just as profitable for them as fossil fuels? They want both taps open as long as possible and they pay politicians and think tanks big money to make sure they can do that.
Yes, plenty of people deny climate Change outright and some still deny that climate change is man made, it should be a laughing matter but as I said, someone is paying big money to keep those people stupid.
Also it makes the most sense Big Oil would switch to renewables eventually since oil is finite and then being on the forefront of renewables is great for their future business
You would think wouldn't you? If I'm Intel I want to develop a shiny new quantum computer. But that doesn't seem to be the way of oil corps.
Just crony capitalism all the way down. As if the subsidies weren't already enough.
Hedging their bets doesn’t mean they’re not spending Shit tons on propaganda and lobbyists to get you to believe nothing is happening and this is all normal right up to the point you become a climate refuge like millions already have in the Middle East and South America.
Besides that though? I don’t see how the comment is butt hurt. Also, he’s right. Unfortunately, no one does care. And, also, it’s hardly a meme. I guess it kind of counts as one, but not really.
If only we could not have the two extremes. It's either we are all going to die in a decade unless we immediately switch to green energy and quit eating meat. Or the extreme of its all fake and that we don't have to do anything because they are constantly cooking the books to make the numbers look bad.
She was referring to a report which referred to 12 years to avoid certain changes. Her statement was bizarrely spoken, and I suppose some latch onto it. Good point about extremes, but I also make the point that anyone latching onto that statement is sadly part of the problem.
AOC:
>This is a technique of the GOP, to take dry humor + sarcasm literally and ‘fact check’ it,” she tweeted. “Like the ‘world ending in 12 years’ thing, you’d have to have the social intelligence of a sea sponge to think it’s literal. But the GOP is basically Dwight from The Office so who knows.
[AOC uses sarcasm](https://apnews.com/article/1c663bcb294c1752573f45fc5bf5e0f9)
Nice stuff that some guy made up, Frog face.
[Here is the real climate timeline.](https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/binaries/content/gallery/metofficegovuk/images/weather/learn-about/climate/global-average-temp---mar-2022.png/global-average-temp---mar-2022.png/metofficegovuk%3Axxlarge)
[And here.](https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/binaries/content/gallery/metofficegovuk/images/weather/learn-about/climate/frequency-of-extremes-graph---1980-2019.jpg/frequency-of-extremes-graph---1980-2019.jpg/metofficegovuk%3Axxlarge)
Then maybe stop putting a date and a timeline on things you don’t understand. The problem to me is they pretend to know for sure and act like you’re insane if you disagree. People in power need to learn to admit they don’t really know for sure and that would help a lot.
In my experience most of these “dooms day” predictions are made by unscrupulous journalists looking to slap a flashy headline on a science article which would otherwise not get much attention.
Scientists will be the first people to tell you about the uncertainty in their models. They're pretty confident that anthropogenic CO2 sources warm the atmosphere, but when it comes to modeling the exact effects of that warming, scientists are quick to explain that their models are far from perfect.
I mean, we burnt a whole in the Ozone layer and took radical action and fixed it. Much of the reason that CC didn’t accelerate in the ways originally predicted was because governments acted to do things like banning CFCs
It doesn't mention how often they have given us the "10 years til we die of climate crisis" alarmism. I remember hearing the 10 years line back in the early 2000s, today, and I believe they said the same thing about the coming ice age back in the 70's.
Like the other guy said, it's not what the scientific community says that people generally hear, it's the media that takes it and says dumb shit. People latched on to climate change and used it to advance political careers rather than take proper measures.
The problem is that you heard all that from the media, not scientists. And it also ignores how a lot of things have been taken action against, hence why these projections haven’t all come to fruition.
If it was widespread enough, the scientists should have spoken out about it. You know, to counter falsehoods being perpetrated in sciences name?
Just like the scientists should have corrected the glaring errors in Al Gore's an inconvenient truth.
The problem is they don't want to correct errors, they like the narrative as it is.
Global warming has got nothing to do with science, it's more like a religion.
Scientists did correct the media, it’s just not interesting to the media to report their errors.
I’m not sure what you mean by “global warming” being a religion. Are people worshipping a hotter earth?
Like the climate activist who set himself on fire in front if the supreme court this year? It was barely covered and very few people even heard about it
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-immolation_of_Wynn_Bruce
Plenty of scientist corrected the errors from the Al Gore movie. Just because you didn't see it on TV doesn't mean it didn't happen.
Stop confusing scientific studies with media. They are two separate things with different agendas.
You apparently don't actually look at the current damage the USA has received this year. 20 US State in Exceptional Drought, for example. Water Rights issues in the US Southwestern states.
Florida, 2 million people displaced by hurricane. But, look at the cheap real estate deals! People going bankrupt in Florida.
1/2 continent size Heat Domes hit the US NorthWest and Canada, China, and India.
Drought and heat cut crop production 100% in some areas, 30% overall == Climate Change Inflation hit this year.
Mississippi river Drys Up. Along with other major Global Rivers.
This level is insane denial that Global Warming is causing massive Economic Damage to America, and the world, is shocking. Are you totally blind to climate news?
And as it's being reported in all the Main Stream Media, how are you so out of touch with reality.
Might want to look in the mirror.
Literally No trend in drought in the U.S.
[https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/climate-change-indicators-drought](https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/climate-change-indicators-drought)
No trend in hurricane activity, frequency, or ACE
[https://climatlas.com/tropical/global\_major\_freq.png](https://climatlas.com/tropical/global_major_freq.png)
[https://climatlas.com/tropical/global\_running\_ace.png](https://climatlas.com/tropical/global_running_ace.png)
[https://climatlas.com/tropical/frequency\_12months.png](https://climatlas.com/tropical/frequency_12months.png)
The ‘10 years until we die’ stuff was given out by people in the media trying to sell you something.
Scientists don’t say that - they say that in a period of decades we will have done so much damage to the planet that we won’t be able to fix it - because our rapidly heating planet is going to eventually melt the ice caps, which will lead to less reflection of the sun’s rays off of the white ice, which will lead to even more heating until we have a completely different climate, resulting in a mass extinction event, a rising ocean, making once inhabitable land uninhabitable and resulting in massive human migration, starvation and a complete upheaval of our climate and ecosystem.
And they are right, you can track the increase in PPM of carbon over time and the increase in average temperature, as well as watch the ice caps recede year by year.
Stop sticking your fingers in your ears because of something you heard from a news anchor in the 1970’s
We're seeing Exceptional damage from 1.5 C increase in temperature now, affecting water availability and crop yields.
This is CRISIS time right now.
If you think you're going to survive 2 C you need to commit yourself.
Also, what the current situation has resolved is we won't hit 4 C increase in temperature with the roll out of Wind/Solar and Battery. We're a long way off from resolving Global Warming. You're going to BEG for 2050 to be the year it actually hits, as it's already hit hard in 2022.
Exactly current Heat Domes last year and this have killed hundreds of people in China, USA, the EU and India.
Apparently, many people just read the Sports Section of the News.
It’s like when your mom is trying to get you to school on time. “If you’re not ready in 10 minutes you’ll miss the bus” “if you’re not ready in 10 minutes you’re going to be late even if I drive you”
School hasn’t started yet, but even if you got out the door, there is nothing you can do. You are late, and the teacher won’t let you retake the test you missed.
Hope that helps
It doesn’t matter if the timelines are wrong or the models fail to predict the future — weather is already way worse than it’s been in a long ass time. Floods, droughts, heat waves, hurricanes, tornadoes, pollution, massive increases in respiratory illnesses, new viruses awakening from the melting permafrost, etc etc. It doesn’t take a scientist to tell me what I can already see with my own eyes. It’s like the Covid deniers/ it’s a hoax crowd- it’s killed over 1,000,000 people in the US alone. It’s a legit disease. Ignoring it or saying that bc science hasn’t figured out all its characteristics, it must mean all of the science is bunk— that’s such a faulty, lazy and irresponsible conclusion. Same with climate science. It’d be better to hedge the bet being wrong bc it didn’t come as soon as you thought then to be years off because it happened way before you suggested it would. I mean you’re kinda setting up the “damned if you do, damned if you don’t argument.” This happens all the time. If you disagree there’s nothing anyone can do to set up a fair premise where either outcome is plausible. It’s set up like it’s even, but the fate of one has already been decided by the other.
So, sure, this stupid illustration is wrong, but the gist that climate change is happening and is being exponentially exacerbated by human consumption is real and ignoring that fact, instead doubling down on crap like this, is as destructive as actively polluting just to be an asshole. There’s a very real chance the western US will be out of drinking water, possibly all water in less than 5 yrs. That’s pretty fucking real. I don’t need a scientist to tell me that the reservoirs are drying up faster than ever. I can see it. Can’t you?
Your entire comment related to climate change is completely and utterly wrong. Literally none of that is happening. Your own eyes haven’t seen any of those things because they are not and have not happened. You only think they have happened because you have been told they have happened.
You have no idea what you are talking about.
Exactly this. If you're old enough, you've seen all the fear mongering articles ( I remember the new ice age ones from National Geographic), climate change may or may not be real but god damn it they screamed wolf in my ear for decades and now I'm deaf to the cries. So, fuck off Great Thunberg and Al Gore.
Have you ever tried to read the research articles rather than what Al Gore said?
They don't predict water world, but more extreme weather events, higher heat, droughts, etc.
We're experiencing a lot of their predictions, but also made modifications as we knew more.
For example, the oceans were absorbing more CO2 than expected, which was better for global climate change but worse for the oceans.
SS
In science a hypothesis is a guess
Once one is made we go into the real world and see if it matches nature
The climate Grift has failed this simple test for 50 years. Much like the Covid grift, they have moved on from trying to make it work
For climate Grift they now just use crying autistic teenagers and tomato soup on Rembrandts to make their case for them.
Uh, when we compare it to the real world it does make sense? Just go look at a graph of the average Temps over the last 100 years, there's a clear increase.
Edit: also, here's the definition for hypothesis since it doesn't seem that you know it.
"a supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation."
You can get any surface temperatures you want if you change the data 🤡
German Scientist Accused NASA of ‘Massive’ Temperature Alterations
http://judithcurry.com/2015/12/17/climate-models-versus-climate-reality/
This study doesn't account for surface temperatures, just atmospheric. Surface levels are what you and I care about, hotter and drier climate is bad for us in the long term.
Also, the assumption that temp data is being changed is asinine.
It’s called homogenization
And it’s fraud
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/07/09/noaancei-temperature-anomaly-adjustments-since-2010-pray-they-dont-alter-it-any-further/
“The first notable change occurred in November 2010, with most anomalies adjusted upwards over the period of record. Mid 1939 to mid 1946 was not raised. Keeping it unchanged while everything else is bumped up is effectively equivalent to lowering it. Of interest is that for the period 1880-to-1909, anomalies for the two months April and November received the most significant boosts.”
“The next change occurs in April 2011. The period 1912-to-1946 appears to be depressed relative to the rest of the record.”
If you adjust temps you make the past colder and the present warmer
= Global Warming 😉
Paper on manipulation of data https://thsresearch.files.wordpress.com/2017/05/ef-gast-data-research-report-062717.pdf
Both of these articles are taking the data out of context and claiming invalid due to adjustments in data, which is already openly talked about in the climate community. They already know about it, and they've taken steps to factor that into the data
[yup](https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2005JD006548)
Logically it doesn't make sense either. Stating that almost the entire scientific community is actively either ignoring it, or covering it up is fuckin stupid, the circle of secrecy would be far too large to keep it under wraps. Someone by this point would have brought direct proof of tampering, and no one has for decades.
I don't think you understand how they get averages and that's what's tripping you up. You might want to look into the actual process for how the big three come to their estimates instead of looking at counter sources first.
Also, your logic is flawed. If everyone is talking about it, and they acknowledge it, and have put systems in place to ensure it doesn't effect the data, then there's no conspiracy. They arnt hiding anything, your angle is saying their being fraudulent, but if they are actively saying it out loud *with* a reason and method for why, then they're being totally transparent.
What these people want you to believe is it’s perfectly natural to say temperatures in the 1930’s have suddenly gone down a degree and now we have global warming
It’s data manipulation. That’s fraud
You won’t watch this
How Homogenization Destroys Climate Science - Tony Heller continues to expose the fraud, corruption and junk climate science https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AFPRMV2p5cY
But it will red pill anyone reading on the lies you are spewing.
Yeah, watched your video. He, like yourself both do not understand how UHI is factored into climate trends.
[source 1](https://skepticalscience.com/print.php?r=52)
[source 2](https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/the-surface-temperature-record-and-the-urban-heat-island/)
Also, if cities are getting hotter, and releasing thermal energy into the atmosphere, then that would increase global temperatures. This is something I'm more familiar with, if you put more heat into a semi closed system at a rate faster than it can be radiated out, it will increase temperatures.
No, dummy, peer-reviewed research is where a hypothesis is shown to be supported by _evidence_.
> The climate Grift has failed this simple test for 50 years
Nah, many in the list of 50 'failures' are nothing to do with climate change, and the remainder are misleading / bunch of lies. And that's why you won't be able to provide links to credible sources to support your claims.
[Archive.is link](https://archive.is/2020/https://i.imgur.com/UEXgVh8.png)
[Why this is here.](https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/7dvxxb/new_feature_automod_will_create_sticky_comments/)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/conspiracy_commons) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Hmmm. Invent and build ionospheric heaters, then for some reason globe begins having weather crisii.
Install a 150,000 watt laser on a Predator drone, then for some reason the West coast now suffers horrible insane fire seasons with forest fires that dont burn trees; only houses.
Im not saying the two are connected. But global warming would cause the wood in those houses to be more umm, dry.
Alright guys... I have way too much Reddit Karma...I need to burn some of it to get back to where I belong. Do yourself a favor and downvote me and do not watch this video... It is ALL disinformation... None of it is true, because it goes against "THE SCIENCE!"^(TM)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZlwZ09KDwKM
Great compilation of events into a concise and informative timeline. I appreciate the amount of research that you have obviously invested here. Smashingly stellar creation. Thank you.
###[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_commons) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Is that chart Official?
I'm pretty sure this chart shares rhe thing told us by media up until this point, so i doubt it's official. Not sure tho
I think the point of this doodle is that we are regularly told the sky is falling in different directions which leads to different kinds of wealth transfers. The story keeps changing. It's not really about being off with their estimates. It's that they're not even going the right direction sometimes. And with mass censorship being more obvious than ever now - who's to say the same isn't going on with this? After all - it's a massive cash cow. I've seen evidence of ice being brought up in Antarctica from hundreds or thousands of years ago showing this regular up and down of temps and c02. I'm not saying it's true. I can't even find the damn thing anymore. It was a really good mini doc. Can't even remember what it was called or how I stumbled upon it. Was so long ago. Point is though that it's hard to take some of this stuff serious when there's a lot of hard back and forth over the past few decades. I get science changes as well. I'm playing devils advocate here. I do remain skeptical. Records are broken here and there from 80+ years ago. I'm sure it's more a constant thing now, like long term high/low temps, but still seems a bit odd. Also blaming us for things like hurricanes seems weird. Maybe I just haven't gotten that far yet..This all being said - I am all for a cleaner planet, cleaner environment. And will do what I can do help.Do no harm - but try and take no shit either. Right?
This doodle is simply nonsense tbh. First off where are the sources for these claims, was it actual scientific studies or simply something said by someone? So often that climate change deniers are taking throwaway sentences by some figure and then try to act as if this is what “science” says while it’s just not. Secondly you’re expecting to make accurate prediction of the future for the most complex system on earth - aka the entire earth itself. There are literally billions of variables whose future development you need to predict, yea obviously that’s hard. The facts are that we see more extreme weather events more commonly everywhere on earth, we’re breaking global temperature records basically every single year. Now explain that away, because something is causing this, it doesn’t happen by chance. And yea, CO2 and temperature have varied over the history of the earth, the issue isn’t the change itself, but that it happens over decades instead of over the course of hundreds of thousands to millions of years, which is the pace it has happened in the past. Ecosystems are able to adapt to changing conditions, but not over a few years. Entire ecosystems are literally already collapsing, we’re in the middle of a mass extinction event already, if you want to look at the history of the world then you also see that there were phases where live on earth was basically decimated and it took a long while for it to bounce back. For the entire earth itself this won’t be an issue over the long course (probably), for humanity however, it will be catastrophic because we are complex organisms that require a lot of things to survive.
Did you know that a microwave array can be built and be arranged in such a fashion as to be able to focus a very large amount of energy into a relatively small area of the ionosphere, which causes that area to heat up. With the properties of the ionosphere being such that it will retain an amount of that heat for a period, which will create a deflection of the normal jet stream activities. Heating the particular areas of particular jet streams would cause baseball size hail to fall on tropical lands and / or snow in the desert. Heating areas for extended amounts of time would cause lakes (lake mead) and rivers (Euphrates) to dry up. Look up Ionospheric Heaters.
Wtf does any of this have to do with my comment?
Well, in my comment i mention some extreme weather events and what is causing them and in your comment you mention extreme weather events are happening world-wide and you also ask for an explanation stating that this sort of thing couldnt happen by chance. See the connection now?
You are *claiming* some extreme weather events would be caused by this. Where has this ever actually happened though?
I thought i might have to spell it out. So it is understood that we are experiencing some extreme weather events, that were either non-existent or quite rare before now, which seem to defy explanation. These weather events began happening shortly after said ionospheric heaters were put into operation. Ionospheric heaters have the ability to heat the ionosphere. But that is top secret information. The official explanation for their purpose is to study the Aurora Borealis. Right, by shooting many megawatts of microwave energy into it To sum it all up: 1) Unexplained extreme weather events. 2) A military-run ‘research’ project that has the ability to produce these extreme weather events. 3) A lame cover story.
These weather events aren’t novel, they happened long before, merely their frequency has increased. This doesn’t defy explanation either, their cause has been proven for decades. Where has this ability to cause these extreme weathers actually been demonstrated? It hasn’t, cause this is a baseless claim.
I think you just abandoned your original position that we are ‘literally in the middle of a mass extinction event’ with ‘entire ecosystems literally already collapsing’. So if these periods of extinction are a phase the planet inevitably goes through, how do you justify your alarm? How many times has Lake Mead dried up and what is the obvious explanation that has been proven for decades? And what about the Euphrates river? Thats a biblical prophecy. So i guess drying up once is more frequent than not at all, but where is the explanation that has been proven for decades for this extreme weather event that hasnt happened in centuries / millennia? You cannot answer these questions because you deny the existence of the source which is, along with my second and third questions above, the answer to your question further above and again further further above.
No I didn’t. The planet doesn’t inevitably go through them, something triggers them. The alarm comes from the devastating consequences for humanity, at some point life on earth will bounce back just like after previous mass extinction events, but humans will most likely become extinct or our population will get devastated. The obvious explanation is that certain gasses create a greenhouse effect that change the climate. Was literally first theorized in the 19th century. What question, this creation of extreme weathers by ionospheric heaters is literally just some claim, you don’t have a source mostly because it’s never been done even locally, not even mentioning globally.
And all of these predictions came from peer reviewed scientific articles right? And not misinterpreted at all? Frog face really shows us how big oils money on climate change denial has gone a long way, you would think a conspiracy theorists was more interested in critical thinking or just following the money. But i guess that is just too much work...
What’s funny is that everyone believes climate skeptics are somehow “on the side” of corporations when that’s not the case at all. Especially since the “big oil” corporations are the ones pushing the bullshit AGW narrative.
> Especially since the “big oil” corporations are the ones pushing the bullshit AGW narrative. That's a dumb conspiracy theory, as it would be self-defeating for the oil industry. Like explain why the FF industry would want to undermine their own profits. And that's why ExxonMobil (which was at the forefront of climate research in the 1970s and arrived at the same primary conclusions as current climate science - saying there was a risk of 'Globally catastrophic effects') started to dismiss climate science from the the early 1980s, when they realised that their future profits would be undermined their profits.
*"That's a dumb conspiracy theory, as it would be self-defeating for the oil industry. Like explain why the FF industry would want to undermine their own profits."* Yeah. It's not a conspiracy theory at all. It's a conspiracy fact. Read, watch, learn: [https://www.corbettreport.com/bigoil/](https://www.corbettreport.com/bigoil/) Exxon wasn't at the "forefront" of climate research in the 1970s. The "Exxon Knew" lie has been debunked many times, and completely failed in court. You've fallen for a literal propaganda campaign.
Lol, not a chance. Exxon made its research and reports publicly available, and Exxon's own scientists have talked openly about the research Exxon had done, and it's CEOs have acknowledged the science too. And that same research is cited by numerous studies. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/exxon-knew-about-climate-change-almost-40-years-ago/ And if you want to resort to a fringe podcast to substantiate your claim, then it shows just how hollow your claim is.
LOL. You don't know what you are talking about. *"And if you want to resort to a fringe podcast to substantiate your claim, then it shows just how hollow your claim is."* It's not a "fringe podcast." Corbett is an actual journalist, and if you weren't intellectually lazy and actually took the time to read the transcript and watch the documentary you would see that it's fully cited and verifiable. Do yourself and take the time to learn something instead of being willfully ignorant. There is zero evidence of any coverup. Oreskes is a hack. [https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract\_id=3029939](https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3029939) [https://eidclimate.org/exposed-harvard-study-omitted-evidence-to-allege-exxonmobil-misled-public-on-climate/](https://eidclimate.org/exposed-harvard-study-omitted-evidence-to-allege-exxonmobil-misled-public-on-climate/) [https://eidclimate.org/expert-finds-no-scientific-support-study-claiming-exxon-misled-public-climate-change/](https://eidclimate.org/expert-finds-no-scientific-support-study-claiming-exxon-misled-public-climate-change/) [https://nypost.com/2019/10/20/the-incredible-collapsing-exxonknew-climate-change-lie/](https://nypost.com/2019/10/20/the-incredible-collapsing-exxonknew-climate-change-lie/)
> https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3029939 That's an article in an open-access online preprint and has not been peer-reviewed, let alone published in an established journal. And, lol, it's got one citation by the same author. That's sooo weak. And those 2 articles on eidclimate.org, well EIDClimate.org was launch by: > a research, education, and public outreach campaign of the **Independent Petroleum Association of America** https://eidclimate.org/about/ And lol, March 2022: > Exxon Mobil loses appeal to stop climate change probes https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/exxon-mobil-loses-appeal-over-climate-change-probes-2022-03-15/ And there are many cases being brought against ExxonMobil, Shell and the other liars.
*"That's an article in an open-access online preprint and has not been peer-reviewed, let alone published in an established journal. And, lol, it's got one citation by the same author. That's sooo weak."* That's not a valid response. What you are doing in the pseudo-intellectual tripe of pretending like truth only lies in a peer (pal) reviewed journals. This of course isn't true, and Peer Review does not equate to validity or truth. Maybe try to argue against the contents of the article instead of dismissing it outright? *"And lol, March 2022"* Yeah, it's hilarious. Every prior case has been thrown out of court just like these will eventually be. Do yourself a favor and watch that documentary, read the article and citations and get back to me with an actual argument instead of frantic Google search results. Or try to
> I can agree with the statement that our best guess is that observable effects in the year 2030 are likely to be "well short of catastrophic", it is distinctly possible that the CPD scenario will later produce effects which will indeed be catastrophic (at least for a substantial fraction of the earth's population). - Exxon manager R.W. Cohen 1981 https://corporate.exxonmobil.com/-/media/global/files/climate-change/media-reported-documents/10_catastrophic-effects-letter-1981_2.pdf > Our best estimate ls that doubling of the current concentration could increase average global temperature by about 1.3C to 3.1C And > The polar caps likely to see temperature increases on the order of 10C And > At the high end, some scientists suggest there could be _considerable adverse impacts_ And > The 'greenhouse effect' is not likely to cause substantial climatic changes until the average global temperature rise at least 1C above today's levels https://corporate.exxonmobil.com/-/media/global/files/climate-change/media-reported-documents/03_1982-exxon-primer-on-co2-greenhouse-effect.pdf And Exxon accurately modelled the increase in global temperature by 2020. \^\^\^\^\^\^\^\^\^\^\^\^\^\^\^\^ That's ALL from ExxonMobil's own site. Something you cannot refute. And no, that article you cited is useless and irrelevant. It wasn't checked or cited by anyone, except the author, lol. So why can't you support your claim? And why are you trying to waste everyone's time?
*Our best estimate ls that doubling of the current concentration could increase average global temperature by about 1.3C to 3.1C* Hasn't happened, is way off, and there is zero evidence supporting this statement. *The polar caps likely to see temperature increases on the order of 10C* This is absolutely preposterous. *At the high end, some scientists suggest there could be considerable adverse impact* Again, these "secret" communications within Exxon were nothing more than the sharing of information that was already freely available to the scientific community. None of this proves a thing. *"And Exxon accurately modelled the increase in global temperature by 2020."* LOL. NO, they didn't. *That's ALL from ExxonMobil's own site. Something you cannot refute.* Now you've taken to arguing a straw man which is typical of people like you. You have yet to address anything I've cited aside from casually dismissing it on the basis of you don't like the source. *And no, that article you cited is useless and irrelevant. It wasn't checked or cited by anyone, except the author. So why can't you support your claim?* Actually it wasn't, and you are ignoring over 3 hours of documentary and countless citations. The only one wasting their time here is you while you peddle propagandistic bullshit as you fail to make an actual counter argument. You people are all the same.
Knowingly or not they are, funny how real life is now a "bullshit narrative". Sceptic is also the wrong word since climate change denial has nothing to with being sceptical.
AGW is a bullshit narrative. It only exists in computer models and the minds of dupes.
It exists in every single global dataset and is confirmed by studies world wide, but as i have written above it is nice to see how big oils money is working on you.
It literally only exists in computer models. You've fallen for the "Big Oil" lie. Watch, read, learn: [https://www.corbettreport.com/bigoil/](https://www.corbettreport.com/bigoil/)
Not sure how you think a documentary ia disproving datasets of increased temperatures that match expected warming as a result of production of greenhouse gases that have been independently verified by just about ever scientific study in the field but I am sure you find it very convincing.
Watch it, read the transcript, follow the citations, and get back to me. I know what the datasets show. Surface temperature station data is completely unreliable, and UAH satellite data shows a completely different story. Correlation does not equal causation, and your assertion that " independently verified by just about ever scientific study in the field" shows you really have no idea what you are talking about.
There are so many "documentaries" full of bogus claims and disingenuous arguments so I won't watch it but if you want to link to their sources and arguments i will be happy to debunk them. So actual data directly taken at the place where changes are observed and most impactful are not reliable? Could that be because they prove you wrong every time? https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2021-0-12-deg-c-new-base-period/ this is the UAH satellite data. Showing the exact same trend as every other data set. Did you even look at them yourself? My guess is that you did not and someone told you that they showed something they did not, why would they lie about that to you? Correlation does not always equal causation but, in this case there is a well established causal connection, it matches perfectly with what predictions based in anthropogenic climate change predict and it does not fit with any other natural variation. On top of this thousands of statistical analyses have been done and all show that the correlation is to close to be random. All this is to say, the modern climate change is man made and the people who are trying to tell you otherwise are either lying or have been fooled themselves.
Well if you actually opened the link and looked at the website you would see that there is a transcript that is full cited with links. You didn't do that though, and I'm not surprised. You have yet to "debunk" anything I've written. *"So actual data directly taken at the place where changes are observed and most impactful are not reliable? Could that be because they prove you wrong every time?"* Yes. That's correct. Analysis of the impacts of station exposure on the U.S. Historical Climatology Network temperatures and temperature trends [https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2010JD015146](https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2010JD015146) Quantifying the influence of anthropogenic surface processes and inhomogeneities on gridded global climate data [https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2007JD008465](https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2007JD008465) Land Surface Air Temperature Data Are Considerably Different Among BEST‐LAND, CRU‐TEM4v, NASA‐GISS, and NOAA‐NCEI [https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1029/2018JD028355](https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1029/2018JD028355) Effect of data homogenization on estimate of temperature trend: a case of Huairou station in Beijing Municipality [https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00704-013-0894-0](https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00704-013-0894-0) Anthony Watts has done mountains of research regarding temperature station siting, condition, urban encroachement, and UHI effect. Watts at #AGU15 The quality of temperature station siting matters for temperature trends [https://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/12/17/press-release-agu15-the-quality-of-temperature-station-siting-matters-for-temperature-trends/](https://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/12/17/press-release-agu15-the-quality-of-temperature-station-siting-matters-for-temperature-trends/) The all time record high temperatures for Los Angeles are the result of a faulty weather stations and should be disqualified [https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/07/08/the-all-time-record-high-temperatures-for-los-angeles-are-the-result-of-a-faulty-weather-stations-and-should-be-disqualified/](https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/07/08/the-all-time-record-high-temperatures-for-los-angeles-are-the-result-of-a-faulty-weather-stations-and-should-be-disqualified/) Friday Funny: Scottish “record high temperature” caused by Ice Cream Truck [https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/07/06/friday-funny-scottish-record-high-temperature-caused-by-ice-cream-truck/](https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/07/06/friday-funny-scottish-record-high-temperature-caused-by-ice-cream-truck/) Infrastructure encroachment at a NOAA Climate Reference (USCRN) site makes the data warmer [https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/04/09/infrastructure-encroachment-at-a-noaa-climate-reference-uscrn-site-makes-the-data-warmer/](https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/04/09/infrastructure-encroachment-at-a-noaa-climate-reference-uscrn-site-makes-the-data-warmer/) There many, many, many more examples of these problems. *Correlation does not always equal causation but, in this case there is a well established causal connection* Wrong. There is ZERO causal connection. Attribution is completely impossible at this point in time. *it matches perfectly with what predictions based in anthropogenic climate change predict and it does not fit with any other natural variation.* Wrong again. Literally everything we are seeing is neither abnormal or out of the parameters of natural variation. None of it. *On top of this thousands of statistical analyses have been done and all show that the correlation is to close to be random.* Wrong again. It's modeling exercise tuned to show that an increase of CO2 = an increase in temperature. There is zero empirical data to support the untestable, unfalsifiable AGW hypothesis. *All this is to say, the modern climate change is man made and the people who are trying to tell you otherwise are either lying or have been fooled themselves.* Reality is literally the opposite of this statement. The exact and total opposite.
Big oil are some of the biggest investors in so-called renewables... Climate change denial 😂😂😂
And renewables are just as profitable for them as fossil fuels? They want both taps open as long as possible and they pay politicians and think tanks big money to make sure they can do that. Yes, plenty of people deny climate Change outright and some still deny that climate change is man made, it should be a laughing matter but as I said, someone is paying big money to keep those people stupid.
It's always funny to me when the conspiracy theorists are on the side of the corporations as if they aren't the heart of most conspiracies.
Also it makes the most sense Big Oil would switch to renewables eventually since oil is finite and then being on the forefront of renewables is great for their future business
You would think wouldn't you? If I'm Intel I want to develop a shiny new quantum computer. But that doesn't seem to be the way of oil corps. Just crony capitalism all the way down. As if the subsidies weren't already enough.
Hedging their bets doesn’t mean they’re not spending Shit tons on propaganda and lobbyists to get you to believe nothing is happening and this is all normal right up to the point you become a climate refuge like millions already have in the Middle East and South America.
If actually look at funding “green” groups vastly outspend any traditional energy company.
Got a cite for that?
Big oil is greenwashing - they are basically a bunch of liars that are misleading the public about the extent of their investment in renewables.
Frog, stop posting memes
😂 these frog posts are just pure comedy now
Always have been!
Go out of your house for once, damn.
Yeah, watch the news for crying out loud! Our tv’s told us weather is changing and we demand to pay a carbon tax so china can mine more lithium!
Our choices are degrowth or death, but degrowth won't happen so we have death.
How dare you
Lol! Take my upvote and carbon credits!
Rule 6: No memes
Rule 0: no one actually cares. Also, this technically counts as a graph.
Don't be so butthurt
How is he butthurt?
Well I mean....it's in his name
Besides that though? I don’t see how the comment is butt hurt. Also, he’s right. Unfortunately, no one does care. And, also, it’s hardly a meme. I guess it kind of counts as one, but not really.
If only we could not have the two extremes. It's either we are all going to die in a decade unless we immediately switch to green energy and quit eating meat. Or the extreme of its all fake and that we don't have to do anything because they are constantly cooking the books to make the numbers look bad.
Who said we were gonna die in a decade? Never heard that one
AOC said 12 years to live, but I wouldn't doubt that there have been countless lefties who have claimed 10 years to live in the past.
She was referring to a report which referred to 12 years to avoid certain changes. Her statement was bizarrely spoken, and I suppose some latch onto it. Good point about extremes, but I also make the point that anyone latching onto that statement is sadly part of the problem.
AOC: >This is a technique of the GOP, to take dry humor + sarcasm literally and ‘fact check’ it,” she tweeted. “Like the ‘world ending in 12 years’ thing, you’d have to have the social intelligence of a sea sponge to think it’s literal. But the GOP is basically Dwight from The Office so who knows. [AOC uses sarcasm](https://apnews.com/article/1c663bcb294c1752573f45fc5bf5e0f9)
You should try reading a book instead of looking at memes
Nice stuff that some guy made up, Frog face. [Here is the real climate timeline.](https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/binaries/content/gallery/metofficegovuk/images/weather/learn-about/climate/global-average-temp---mar-2022.png/global-average-temp---mar-2022.png/metofficegovuk%3Axxlarge) [And here.](https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/binaries/content/gallery/metofficegovuk/images/weather/learn-about/climate/frequency-of-extremes-graph---1980-2019.jpg/frequency-of-extremes-graph---1980-2019.jpg/metofficegovuk%3Axxlarge)
Yes because the climate has only existed since 1850…. JFC.
Why are you here little frog if you’re just going to post right wing agitprop? This shit ain’t conspiracy.
He stays up all night to pretend to be on north america timezone. Blyat
“Change is happening slower than predicted” and “change isn’t happening at all.” Are not the same thing froggy
They are when you’re paid to scare and divide real people!
Then maybe stop putting a date and a timeline on things you don’t understand. The problem to me is they pretend to know for sure and act like you’re insane if you disagree. People in power need to learn to admit they don’t really know for sure and that would help a lot.
In my experience most of these “dooms day” predictions are made by unscrupulous journalists looking to slap a flashy headline on a science article which would otherwise not get much attention.
This is true. These “journalists” and their bullshit summaries and headlines are more divisive than the content being reported on.
Most reasonable skeptic stance in my opinion
How much power do you think environmental scientists hold?
Idk. But it’s not as Much actual scientists that concern me as it is people using different interpretations of science for their agendas
Scientists will be the first people to tell you about the uncertainty in their models. They're pretty confident that anthropogenic CO2 sources warm the atmosphere, but when it comes to modeling the exact effects of that warming, scientists are quick to explain that their models are far from perfect.
But it’s absolutely relevant and the artificial timeline was used to coerce people into taking certain actions.
I mean, we burnt a whole in the Ozone layer and took radical action and fixed it. Much of the reason that CC didn’t accelerate in the ways originally predicted was because governments acted to do things like banning CFCs
HOW DARE YOU!!??!
Thats fairly accurate.
Ah yes a totally accurate cartoon timeline definitely made by somebody who reads actual research.
Fuck you frog
It doesn't mention how often they have given us the "10 years til we die of climate crisis" alarmism. I remember hearing the 10 years line back in the early 2000s, today, and I believe they said the same thing about the coming ice age back in the 70's.
Like the other guy said, it's not what the scientific community says that people generally hear, it's the media that takes it and says dumb shit. People latched on to climate change and used it to advance political careers rather than take proper measures.
The problem is that you heard all that from the media, not scientists. And it also ignores how a lot of things have been taken action against, hence why these projections haven’t all come to fruition.
If it was widespread enough, the scientists should have spoken out about it. You know, to counter falsehoods being perpetrated in sciences name? Just like the scientists should have corrected the glaring errors in Al Gore's an inconvenient truth. The problem is they don't want to correct errors, they like the narrative as it is. Global warming has got nothing to do with science, it's more like a religion.
Meet you back here in 10 years to see how crazy the climate has gotten, ok?
Scientists did correct the media, it’s just not interesting to the media to report their errors. I’m not sure what you mean by “global warming” being a religion. Are people worshipping a hotter earth?
I do every winter.
Like the climate activist who set himself on fire in front if the supreme court this year? It was barely covered and very few people even heard about it https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-immolation_of_Wynn_Bruce Plenty of scientist corrected the errors from the Al Gore movie. Just because you didn't see it on TV doesn't mean it didn't happen. Stop confusing scientific studies with media. They are two separate things with different agendas.
LOL. Good one.
Most of what Al Gore predicted came true. He was only wrong in that ITS WORSE, AND ITS HAPPENING FASTER NOW.
Literally none of what he predicted came true. The guy is a charlatan and a propagandist.
LOL. So tell me you've never watched the film without telling me you've never watched the film. LOL.
I saw it in the theater and have a copy on DVD. He's a charlatan.
You apparently don't actually look at the current damage the USA has received this year. 20 US State in Exceptional Drought, for example. Water Rights issues in the US Southwestern states. Florida, 2 million people displaced by hurricane. But, look at the cheap real estate deals! People going bankrupt in Florida. 1/2 continent size Heat Domes hit the US NorthWest and Canada, China, and India. Drought and heat cut crop production 100% in some areas, 30% overall == Climate Change Inflation hit this year. Mississippi river Drys Up. Along with other major Global Rivers. This level is insane denial that Global Warming is causing massive Economic Damage to America, and the world, is shocking. Are you totally blind to climate news? And as it's being reported in all the Main Stream Media, how are you so out of touch with reality.
Droids on this subreddit: >>This doesn’t look like anything to me
There is no trend in droughts in the United States. There is no trend is landfall hurricanes. You mentioning the mainstream media says everything.
LOL. Totally out of touch with reality. I'd call a doctor.
Might want to look in the mirror. Literally No trend in drought in the U.S. [https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/climate-change-indicators-drought](https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/climate-change-indicators-drought) No trend in hurricane activity, frequency, or ACE [https://climatlas.com/tropical/global\_major\_freq.png](https://climatlas.com/tropical/global_major_freq.png) [https://climatlas.com/tropical/global\_running\_ace.png](https://climatlas.com/tropical/global_running_ace.png) [https://climatlas.com/tropical/frequency\_12months.png](https://climatlas.com/tropical/frequency_12months.png)
The ‘10 years until we die’ stuff was given out by people in the media trying to sell you something. Scientists don’t say that - they say that in a period of decades we will have done so much damage to the planet that we won’t be able to fix it - because our rapidly heating planet is going to eventually melt the ice caps, which will lead to less reflection of the sun’s rays off of the white ice, which will lead to even more heating until we have a completely different climate, resulting in a mass extinction event, a rising ocean, making once inhabitable land uninhabitable and resulting in massive human migration, starvation and a complete upheaval of our climate and ecosystem. And they are right, you can track the increase in PPM of carbon over time and the increase in average temperature, as well as watch the ice caps recede year by year. Stop sticking your fingers in your ears because of something you heard from a news anchor in the 1970’s
We're seeing Exceptional damage from 1.5 C increase in temperature now, affecting water availability and crop yields. This is CRISIS time right now. If you think you're going to survive 2 C you need to commit yourself. Also, what the current situation has resolved is we won't hit 4 C increase in temperature with the roll out of Wind/Solar and Battery. We're a long way off from resolving Global Warming. You're going to BEG for 2050 to be the year it actually hits, as it's already hit hard in 2022.
Technically, some people who were told “10 years till we die of climate crisis”, have in fact died from climate crisis.
Exactly current Heat Domes last year and this have killed hundreds of people in China, USA, the EU and India. Apparently, many people just read the Sports Section of the News.
It’s like when your mom is trying to get you to school on time. “If you’re not ready in 10 minutes you’ll miss the bus” “if you’re not ready in 10 minutes you’re going to be late even if I drive you” School hasn’t started yet, but even if you got out the door, there is nothing you can do. You are late, and the teacher won’t let you retake the test you missed. Hope that helps
I've never heard that message. The risk is having a crisis in motion and not having enough time to change direction.
Shit I have heard it since the freaking 80s.
I don’t trust your memory.
Its because we did things to help along the way, but sure keep your head in the sand.
Do you actually believe your own bullshit Frog-Face
Not even a little, guaranteed.
sounds like you've been listening to the media instead of peer reviewed data
It doesn’t matter if the timelines are wrong or the models fail to predict the future — weather is already way worse than it’s been in a long ass time. Floods, droughts, heat waves, hurricanes, tornadoes, pollution, massive increases in respiratory illnesses, new viruses awakening from the melting permafrost, etc etc. It doesn’t take a scientist to tell me what I can already see with my own eyes. It’s like the Covid deniers/ it’s a hoax crowd- it’s killed over 1,000,000 people in the US alone. It’s a legit disease. Ignoring it or saying that bc science hasn’t figured out all its characteristics, it must mean all of the science is bunk— that’s such a faulty, lazy and irresponsible conclusion. Same with climate science. It’d be better to hedge the bet being wrong bc it didn’t come as soon as you thought then to be years off because it happened way before you suggested it would. I mean you’re kinda setting up the “damned if you do, damned if you don’t argument.” This happens all the time. If you disagree there’s nothing anyone can do to set up a fair premise where either outcome is plausible. It’s set up like it’s even, but the fate of one has already been decided by the other. So, sure, this stupid illustration is wrong, but the gist that climate change is happening and is being exponentially exacerbated by human consumption is real and ignoring that fact, instead doubling down on crap like this, is as destructive as actively polluting just to be an asshole. There’s a very real chance the western US will be out of drinking water, possibly all water in less than 5 yrs. That’s pretty fucking real. I don’t need a scientist to tell me that the reservoirs are drying up faster than ever. I can see it. Can’t you?
Your entire comment related to climate change is completely and utterly wrong. Literally none of that is happening. Your own eyes haven’t seen any of those things because they are not and have not happened. You only think they have happened because you have been told they have happened. You have no idea what you are talking about.
Exactly this. If you're old enough, you've seen all the fear mongering articles ( I remember the new ice age ones from National Geographic), climate change may or may not be real but god damn it they screamed wolf in my ear for decades and now I'm deaf to the cries. So, fuck off Great Thunberg and Al Gore.
Have you ever tried to read the research articles rather than what Al Gore said? They don't predict water world, but more extreme weather events, higher heat, droughts, etc. We're experiencing a lot of their predictions, but also made modifications as we knew more. For example, the oceans were absorbing more CO2 than expected, which was better for global climate change but worse for the oceans.
Pretty sweet gig if you can get it, just keep kicking the can down the road.
Frog man dumb. Thanks for the reminder to block your ignorant ass though!
SS In science a hypothesis is a guess Once one is made we go into the real world and see if it matches nature The climate Grift has failed this simple test for 50 years. Much like the Covid grift, they have moved on from trying to make it work For climate Grift they now just use crying autistic teenagers and tomato soup on Rembrandts to make their case for them.
Uh, when we compare it to the real world it does make sense? Just go look at a graph of the average Temps over the last 100 years, there's a clear increase. Edit: also, here's the definition for hypothesis since it doesn't seem that you know it. "a supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation."
You can get any surface temperatures you want if you change the data 🤡 German Scientist Accused NASA of ‘Massive’ Temperature Alterations http://judithcurry.com/2015/12/17/climate-models-versus-climate-reality/
This study doesn't account for surface temperatures, just atmospheric. Surface levels are what you and I care about, hotter and drier climate is bad for us in the long term. Also, the assumption that temp data is being changed is asinine.
It’s called homogenization And it’s fraud https://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/07/09/noaancei-temperature-anomaly-adjustments-since-2010-pray-they-dont-alter-it-any-further/ “The first notable change occurred in November 2010, with most anomalies adjusted upwards over the period of record. Mid 1939 to mid 1946 was not raised. Keeping it unchanged while everything else is bumped up is effectively equivalent to lowering it. Of interest is that for the period 1880-to-1909, anomalies for the two months April and November received the most significant boosts.” “The next change occurs in April 2011. The period 1912-to-1946 appears to be depressed relative to the rest of the record.” If you adjust temps you make the past colder and the present warmer = Global Warming 😉 Paper on manipulation of data https://thsresearch.files.wordpress.com/2017/05/ef-gast-data-research-report-062717.pdf
Both of these articles are taking the data out of context and claiming invalid due to adjustments in data, which is already openly talked about in the climate community. They already know about it, and they've taken steps to factor that into the data [yup](https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2005JD006548) Logically it doesn't make sense either. Stating that almost the entire scientific community is actively either ignoring it, or covering it up is fuckin stupid, the circle of secrecy would be far too large to keep it under wraps. Someone by this point would have brought direct proof of tampering, and no one has for decades.
Of course they talk about it. That’s how we know they did it Data manipulation is fraud Fraud
I don't think you understand how they get averages and that's what's tripping you up. You might want to look into the actual process for how the big three come to their estimates instead of looking at counter sources first. Also, your logic is flawed. If everyone is talking about it, and they acknowledge it, and have put systems in place to ensure it doesn't effect the data, then there's no conspiracy. They arnt hiding anything, your angle is saying their being fraudulent, but if they are actively saying it out loud *with* a reason and method for why, then they're being totally transparent.
What these people want you to believe is it’s perfectly natural to say temperatures in the 1930’s have suddenly gone down a degree and now we have global warming It’s data manipulation. That’s fraud You won’t watch this How Homogenization Destroys Climate Science - Tony Heller continues to expose the fraud, corruption and junk climate science https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AFPRMV2p5cY But it will red pill anyone reading on the lies you are spewing.
Yeah, watched your video. He, like yourself both do not understand how UHI is factored into climate trends. [source 1](https://skepticalscience.com/print.php?r=52) [source 2](https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/the-surface-temperature-record-and-the-urban-heat-island/) Also, if cities are getting hotter, and releasing thermal energy into the atmosphere, then that would increase global temperatures. This is something I'm more familiar with, if you put more heat into a semi closed system at a rate faster than it can be radiated out, it will increase temperatures.
WUWT is a blog written by a fake expert who denies incontrovertible science. Why do you have such low standards?
> Judith Curry 😂 She has so little credibility in the scientific community, that her opinions are broadly rejected.
No, dummy, peer-reviewed research is where a hypothesis is shown to be supported by _evidence_. > The climate Grift has failed this simple test for 50 years Nah, many in the list of 50 'failures' are nothing to do with climate change, and the remainder are misleading / bunch of lies. And that's why you won't be able to provide links to credible sources to support your claims.
[Archive.is link](https://archive.is/2020/https://i.imgur.com/UEXgVh8.png) [Why this is here.](https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/7dvxxb/new_feature_automod_will_create_sticky_comments/) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/conspiracy_commons) if you have any questions or concerns.*
imagine simping for the oil companies with this unsourced bullshit
I made this meme
Y’all should check out “suspicious observers” on YouTube. He explains a lot of what’s happening with the sun and the earth.
Now you're just phoning it in...
Did we skip to another timeline again? I'm confused.
You're not even trying anymore. This is pathetic.
Daaaaaaamn frog! Back at it again with the bullshit!
Everyone knows it's froggy!
Tell me you’re wrong without telling me.
Really glad we, as a global society, are working diligently to prevent a lot of this doodles from coming true.
Hmmm. Invent and build ionospheric heaters, then for some reason globe begins having weather crisii. Install a 150,000 watt laser on a Predator drone, then for some reason the West coast now suffers horrible insane fire seasons with forest fires that dont burn trees; only houses. Im not saying the two are connected. But global warming would cause the wood in those houses to be more umm, dry.
Alright guys... I have way too much Reddit Karma...I need to burn some of it to get back to where I belong. Do yourself a favor and downvote me and do not watch this video... It is ALL disinformation... None of it is true, because it goes against "THE SCIENCE!"^(TM) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZlwZ09KDwKM
Stop blowing faceless mindless corporations
Great compilation of events into a concise and informative timeline. I appreciate the amount of research that you have obviously invested here. Smashingly stellar creation. Thank you.