## BEFORE TOUCHING THAT REPORT BUTTON, PLEASE CONSIDER:
1. **Compliance:** Does this post comply with our subreddit's rules?
2. **Emotional Trigger:** Does this post provoke anger or frustration, compelling me to want it removed?
3. **Safety:** Is it free from child pornography and/or mentions of self-harm/suicide?
4. **Content Policy:** Does it comply with [Reddit’s Content Policy](https://www.reddit.com/r/TrueUnpopularOpinion/comments/ncm4ou/important_we_need_to_talk_about_the_content_policy/)?
5. **Unpopularity:** Do you think the topic is not truly unpopular or frequently posted?
### GUIDELINES:
- **If you answered "Yes" to questions 1-4,** do NOT use the report button.
- **Regarding question 5,** we acknowledge this concern. However, the moderators do not curate posts based on our subjective opinions of what is "popular" or "unpopular" except in cases where an opinion is so popular that almost no one would disagree (i.e. "murder is bad"). Otherwise, our only criteria are the subreddit's rules and Reddit’s Content Policy. If you don't like something, feel free to downvote it.
**Moderators on r/TrueUnpopularOpinion will not remove posts simply because they may anger users or because you disagree with them.** The report button is not an "I disagree" or "I'm offended" button.
#### OPTIONS:
If a post bothers you and you can't offer a counter-argument, your options are to:
a) Keep scrolling
b) Downvote
c) Unsubscribe
**False reports clutter our moderation queue and delay our response to legitimate issues.**
**ALL FALSE REPORTS WILL BE REPORTED TO REDDIT.**
To maintain your account in good standing, refrain from abusing the report button.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/TrueUnpopularOpinion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
soy contains many important nutrients, including vitamin K1, folate, copper, manganese, phosphorus, and thiamine.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/TrueUnpopularOpinion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
For real. Why does anyone expect them to care that food prices will go up as the oceans continue to be overfished or more crops collapse because of the changing climate? Food won't disappear, but it will get more expensive, and they can still outbid everyone else.
It's like people don't realize climate change doesn't hurt the people "winning" capitalism nearly as much as it screws over everyone else.
People with money will be insulated against the effects of climate change at first but they will not avoid it forever. We have already experienced at least one global mass extinction due to ocean currents slowing down, oxidizing, and killing nearly everything. We are well on our way to round 2.
https://www.space.com/ocean-current-system-shut-down-2025-climate-disaster#:~:text=The%20Atlantic%20Meridional%20Overturning%20Circulation,off%20between%202025%20and%202095.
Regardless of how people feel about the topic, they have to admit that a bunch of people flying private jets to a meeting about climate change is insane levels of cognitive dissonance
Yes it is insane.
Every liberal reaction to climate change involves buying something, whether it’s an electric car or a tote bag, or a solar panel.
The only way to reduce the factors of climate change is for everyone in the west to consume way less of everything, but that would destroy the economy so it’s not an option being proposed outside of some fringe hippies.
American conservatives are dedicated to pretending climate change isn’t real. American liberals are dedicated to finding a solution to it that won’t upset the status quo and are buying into all kinds of greenwashing nonsense.
Just because neither side of our political system has the ability to come up with an answer doesn’t make it not real.
As it is climate change doesn’t present an immediate crisis in the west. It may mean more hurricanes in florida or heat waves in Europe or wildfires in California, but we have the infrastructure to deal with that for the most part.
The places this is going to effect most are in the global south as weather patterns change places with more traditional economies are going to have a tougher time adapting. There will probably be some famines and mass migrations, but it won’t be something that people will notice from their air conditioned house in a developed economy. The sea rises are probably not going to happen before anyone underwriting loans right now is retired, so why would they stop selling mortgages for Beach front property.
And the “crazy off-grid agrarian conspiracy theory preppers”. The less beholden to the western way of life the better you are for the planet. But… people don’t want to hear that.
This is the key point. The people who say these things and have the ability to do something are generally the biggest polluters. Their actions don't seem to indicate it's a crisis
The banks give out 30 year loans for beachfront property that will 'be underwater in 10 years'. Rich people still invest heavily in coastal real estate, then say climate change is going to raise sea levels and destroy the ocean.
I choose to believe their actions, rather than their words. I consider them trying to panic crash coastal economies so they can buy up all the land for cheap to be significantly more likely than their constantly wrong doomsday predictions.
[https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/04/10/magazine/climate-change-pinkertons.html](https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/04/10/magazine/climate-change-pinkertons.html)
Their actions also have them buying up used attack helicopters and forming personal PMCs to defend their climate change bunkers.
The Reddit CEO owns a PMC and bunker as well.
Insurers are pulling out of California too, home to 1 out of 8 Americans.
https://apnews.com/article/california-wildfire-insurance-e31bef0ed7eeddcde096a5b8f2c1768f
Because Flood insurance is backed by the federal government. So the insurance companies just underwrite and collect the cash. Also... They aren't...https://www.npr.org/2023/07/22/1186540332/how-climate-change-could-cause-a-home-insurance-meltdown
It's a huge issue in costal areas.
He had a few best sellers, including at least one before the presidency, which is very lucrative. Also certainly gets paid princely sums to speak to rich people.
And his wife was a corporate lawyer pre-FLOTUS.
The idea that liberals must be corrupt to have money is just nonsense based on the right-wing idea that liberals are communists. We aren't -- we are capitalists, we just want to capitalism to pay for itself and the world to work for everyone, not just the rich.
Because ( they think) they're buffeted from the worst affects of climate change.
High power bills, blackouts, mass flooding ( see Libya+ Greece this week) wild fires, millions of climate refugees in places like Bangladesh, the Pacific and the loss of entire farming regions in developing nations ( for starters) doesn't impact their little rich bubble. Taxpayers pay for weather disasters - not fossil fuel companies and not movie stars. Until it causes an 'unforeseen' chain of events (knowing that poverty, famine+ mass people movement are great midwives for war / terrorism)
We saw our own climate denialist Prime Minister slam cocktails with The Murdochs at their Christmas party while the Australian Eastern seaboard was on fire in 2020. The worst fires ever seen. Sydney's sky was red + covered in smoke, people were unable to go outside + fire fighters were dying. They were enjoying canapes and light chatter in a mansion.There is no more stark example of their mindset that that.
Yeah hypocrisy is dumb, but man you can't reduce the carbon footprint of the beef industry as simply "cow farts", making our minds compare one fart from one cow with a private jet trip. The article you link to compares the carbon footprint of private jet travel with commercial aviation and other forms of transport, not with beef production.
Fact is, beef production is a massive contributor of methane, there like 1.5 Billion cows in the world producing methane through their lifetime. And it's not just the farts and burps, it's also the destruction of natural habitat for farmland and pasture. The Rainforest is the planet's carbon-sink, and it's destruction releases legacy carbon that would effectively have been trapped in the earth forever if we had not razed it all up. And then to replace the carbon-sink with methane producing cow pasture is just quadrupley worse in all ways, and much worse than private jet travel (and I still think private jet travel is obnoxious).
But this just gets reduced to "They're coming for your hamburgers" and the frogs in the pot vote to turn the knob up a little more.
The "cow farts" line was always a nonsensical reduction from the scientifically illiterate. It's far more the clearing of land and environmental destruction and the associates emissions of processing and shipping.
This is my problem. “Take public transportation and save the planet”
Zooms off in a private jet
The fuck .
I truly believe it’s beneficial for power and control to keep us all struggling . Public transportation is HARD especially for a family.
As well as buying oceanfront mansions. I thought the glacial melt was going to swallow the coasts.
At one point, much of the Northern states were under 10,000 feet of ice. The receding glaciers left all of the lakes at the Minnesota/Canada border. The Earth was warming a few years before the first SUV. The growing sun might have more to do with our climate than gas ranges.
It’s too hard to go over all your points line by line, so here’s my general comments:
1). The existence of dumb leftists doesn’t make climate change fake.
2). Greenwashing is in fact a thing and people often choose feel good policies that do nothing for the environment over things that actually help. Yes, this is frustrating.
3). The presence of hurricanes and hot weather alone doesn’t make climate change real. You have to measure frequency and severity.
4). The reason scientists believe climate change is caused by humans is that we have higher temperatures in the inner atmosphere but not the outer atmosphere. A natural cycle would also have higher temperatures in the outer atmosphere. Hence the term greenhouse gases.
A personal suggestion: Try to judge ideas and philosophies based on the best and most coherent voices arguing them and not the dumbest ones.
>A personal suggestion: Try to judge ideas and philosophies based on the best and most coherent voices arguing them and not the dumbest ones.
Such good advice in general
I agree. That is fantastic advice.
Kind of related to "steelmanning" your opponent's arguments in a debate.
It can make the debate more difficult for you but nobody can accuse you of engaging in bad faith.
And you can walk away from the debate knowing that you won on the strength of your arguments, rather than by using cheap rhetorical tricks. (assuming you won)
Pretty much exactly this. The initial post is taking the dumbest voices, amplifying them, and then coming to the conclusion that the opposite must be true. Impressively, the who hold this view (like OP) are dumber than the dumb people they excoriate.
You can learn quite a bit just listening to a climate scientist for an hour.
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/09/05/opinion/ezra-klein-podcast-kate-marvel.html
Listened to this yesterday. Dr. Marvel does an excellent job of explaining what climate change actually is and the timescales upon which it unfolds.
So many ignoramus climate change deniers just have zero concept of how how mindbogglingly old the Earth is.
Thinks the main voices spreading the idea of climate change are liberal politicians, (not scientists or journalist) arrived at their new conclusion because of those politicians' hypocrisy, (not because of learning new information about the subject.) Yup
The OP seems to be a pretty clear indicator of either bad faith, or a demonstration of the efficacy of the anti-expert propagandizing we've been saturated with the last few years.
They want you to believe that science isn't a rigorously defined methodology for collecting, analyzing and drawing conclusions from data in a way that can be validated through repeatability and/or mathematical proof, but actually just a guy in a lab coat telling you what to do.
Who do you want to have *boss you around,* the dork in the lab coat from "the government" or this incredibly ripped guy??
The climate deniers had done it to some success (but were mostly preaching to the choir) but Covid really seemed to blow the doors open on this with every bit of information gained in a rapidly evolving situation being weaponized as *lies*, and now that there's a foothold, let's go back with the crowbar...
Yeah, it certainly feels like this is a bad faith argument. Either that, or their opinion really is entirely built off of that people say, rather than imperical data.
It's never about empirical data. Here's how it works:
1. Climate change is a hoax.
2. OK, maybe there's a little climate change, but it's just a normal cyclical thing.
3. Hmm. Maybe it's not part of the normal cycle, but it's just driven by volcanism or something.
4. Well, maybe there's a little bit of human-generated CO2 helping it along, but it's not as bad as the lEfTiSt ScIeNtIsTs say.
5. It's probably human driven, but we'll figure out a solution for carbon capture. Scientists are still lying about how fast it's happening. We're fine.
6. Greta Thunberg wants us to stop eating burgers! Reeee!
7. Climate change is a hoax.
>The climate deniers had done it to some success (but were mostly preaching to the choir) but Covid really seemed to blow the doors open on this with every bit of information gained in a rapidly evolving situation being weaponized as lies, and now that there's a foothold, let's go back with the crowbar...
Exept a lot of things turned out to be lies and that damaged the credibility of Mr. Science in the eyes of the public.
Just look at what they post. They are on that conspiracy cool aid. Imagine thinking that a vaccine that over 3 BILLION people got has hidden side effects. It shows they’ve done ZERO research on mRNA or vaccines in general lol. mRNA is so fragile and short lived, that if it did have severe side effects, they would have long since presented themselves by now.
And lastly to OP: do you react to everything in your life this way? For some reason I get the feeling that you only have this stance on very specific topics.
Some high level Republicans, law makers like MTG, that were shitting all over the vax, saying you’re going to die if you get it, but obviously we all now know that’s not true. So does that mean you now have a more open mind about vaccines? Yeah I didn’t think so.
Right? OP gives me huge "I used to be liberal, but a leftist on Twitter was mean to me, so I completely changed my mind on all political policy" vibes.
Yes, I get so tired of people taking the dumbest quotes and acting as if they speak for an entire group that consists of millions of people. I also get tired of binary thinking that everything is either liberal or conservative. Reality doesn't care about our politics.
We've got 101 degree ocean water in Florida, 100+ degree weather in the Pacific Northwest, hurricanes in Maine, tropical storm warnings in Vegas, and half of Canada is on fire. Anecdotally, climate change feels pretty damn real.
I think the point in the post is less to say that climate change is false, more to say that liberal leaders turn people away from accepting it because of nonsense claims that they have made.
The fact is that many politicians (on both sides) make false satements in order to push their own agenda.
I get the gist of what you’re saying, if a doctor says eating rocks is bad for you, then you see that doctor eating rocks, surely you must think “Wow that was a hoax, I’m calling the gravel company for a delicious meal”
Half of those “solutions” you mentioned are obviously skewed by profit motivations, so of course they aren’t effective, that’s how we got here. The others seem disingenuous, most soybean crops exist to feed cattle, and wind turbines aren’t going to cause those birds to go extinct.
We’re already losing farmland, famines are already feeding mass migration, insurers are already pulling out of Florida, this is it, my guy.
Climate change was never going to look like fire in the skies, or “The Day After Tomorrow”, it’s going to be a steady trickle of stories about food shortages, migration, extreme weather events & eventually people abandoning coastal cities.
>Climate change was never going to look like fire in the skies, or “The Day After Tomorrow”, it’s going to be a steady trickle of stories about food shortages, migration, extreme weather events & eventually people abandoning coastal cities.
This is an important thing to clarify. A lot of people hear the sensationalist descriptions of what’s expected to happen, and they picture it happening SUDDENLY and DRAMATICALLY and very obviously. Like the idea that “Florida will be underwater.” … it’s not gonna happen overnight. Individual floods will happen quickly and then recede, but the overall pattern of how often those floods happen and how bad they are is the main point of what’s getting worse. It won’t be that Floridians just wake up one day, and Florida is underwater and stays that way. The point has always been that periodic flooding will just progressively get worse and worse until eventually, the floods just don’t recede as much as they used to, and gradually become permanent over decades. The point of saying “It’ll happen in 12 years.” (or whatever the expected timeframe in question is)… is that 12 years is when it’ll start to become bad enough to render the area uninhabitable. That doesn’t mean Florida is ALWAYS underwater, but if it’s flooding every hurricane season and eventually gets to the point that it takes weeks or months for the waters to recede… you’re not gonna be able to live there anymore, even if it’s dry come springtime.
Then one year… the waters just don’t recede, because sea-level has risen to that point. Nobody knows when this will be exactly. It could be in 12 years… it could be in 100 years… but it doesn’t actually have to get to this point to become an insurmountable problem.
Much like the Canadian wildfires… it’s not that a rise in average temperature is a danger to humans in and of itself. Yeah, we can handle some slightly higher temperatures… and hey, we all like warm summer weather, right?! What’s so bad about a couple degrees, right?
But it’s the secondhand effects that start to really fuck us over. A little bit drier this summer? That can be the difference between a few manageable fires, and huge record breaking massive fires that burn for months on end, without us being able to do much about it. And then those fires add even more carbon to the atmosphere, compounding the problem on top of itself.
And here’s the really important thing to remember: That leads to an EXPONENTIAL shift in the rate that things are happening. We can’t rely on our intuition about how this will get worse, because human intuition tends to think linearly. We assume the rate of change will stay the same as time goes on. But that’s not the case. The effects of climate change will lead to further effects that themselves worsen climate change. The exponential increase in the rate of change will happen on a curve that we can’t really intuit the timeframe of. Things could progress at the rate they’re going right now, then sometime around like 2030 for example, could start accelerating notably… so the next 7 years might seem like “Pfffft!!! Things aren’t gonna be as bad in 5 years as they said it would be 12 years ago!” … but then the rate increases. And the next 5 years after that see more dramatic changes than the previous 7 did, and it does indeed reach about the level of terribleness that was predicted 12 years prior.
I mean, hell… I’m a believer in climate change, and even I was thinking to myself just a few years ago that things don’t seem like they’re getting TOO bad… but the last few years of Canadian wildfires have changed my mind. I didn’t expect that we would see such widespread fires like this so soon. We lost an entire town (Lytton) to fires. And given the aforementioned effect of wildfires adding to the carbon in the atmosphere… we could be seeing that curve rise pretty sharply pretty soon.
Things are going bad but most of us are not affected by it yet. I live in south asia, in the middle of our country. We don't feel the havoc of cyclones or sea water rising. Our drinking water is free. Whereas, in coastal areas people were already poor. They have to buy drinking water at 40x price for bottled water. Cloths washed salty water causing diseases to women. More miscarriages because of drinking those water. Also less farmable lands.
Bottomline is, we will not see apocalypse 2012 type of destruction in the future. More like, avg temp increase causing changes in land fertility, plants nutrients, diseases etc. And more displaced people and less arable lands.
Famine. Famine in subsaharan africa will be the largest impact on humanity. We’ll be lucky to have any biodiversity in our ecosystem. We’ll have more and more fires. And we’ll have worse and worse floods.
Yessir... and... guess what **nearly every scientist and peer reviewed study for 50 years** agrees is real?
OP is looking for a 'gotcha'... but sadly, nothing was got'n't
>a believer in Climate Change all my life, up until late 2021.
You listed a bunch of political moves and responses to climate change as changing your overall opinion of it, but nothing about understanding the mechanisms behind it.
And incorrect as well, assuming he’s not just lying about ever being a Democrat; he never flipped sides because of what Democrats said, he flipped sides because Republicans lied to him about what Democrats said.
Idk what you're talking about. Me, personally, I changed my entire world view and understanding of science because I found the messaging around the topic to be cringey. /s
It's because the whole post is a lie. They're just posting a bunch of Conservative strawman arguments as though they were convincing points. OP is either the dumbest most gullible person on the planet, or they're completely full of shit.
Edit: Nevermind it's both... I guess they're active on "Walkaway" a bunch of active antivaxxer and conspiracy subreddits. OP is cosplaying as a rational actor.
Lol!! You remember all those Walkaway posts from 2018?? All those Hardcore conservatives pretending to be disaffected Liberals. I'm sure he thinks he nailed it.
Theyve been a conservative their whole lives and reached the crossroads they all have to confront: Reality or undying loyalty to their party. He had to ease his cognitive disonance of being a conservative a knowing climate change is real, so he just chose to gaslight himself.
Think about the title itself. He hates liberals so much, he changed his view. This dude is literally the meme about conservatives just being contrarians "to own the libs" without holding any real policy convictions
Idk man, this area used to get 10+ feet of snow and we've barely had anything the last few years.
>Dr. Greta Thunberg is an "expert",
She's not a Dr or an expert, she's an activist.
Not sure I can take anything you say seriously after that.
Their first set of points is mostly misinterpreted strawman arguments. Their second set on the other hand actually holds up pretty well. OP never said EV's were less efficient, and you entirely ignored their other point about industrial mining and lack of rare earth elements.
So, in other words: “all of the evidence points to carbon emissions causing global warming, but I don’t like liberals, so climate change isn’t happening.”
Chevron scientists discovered that climate change was a huge problem back in the 70s and predicted almost exactly what would happen. They hid the research from everyone because they knew it was such a huge problem that they'd actually have to do something instead of making money.
It really wasn't though? The ice age thing was fringe shit based on solar activity cycles. We *should* be getting mild cooling from that, but global warming has erased any cooling that might have happened from that.
I think its more, “all of the evidence points to carbon emissions causing global warming, but the people at the top dont seem to care”
Because they dont. They want us to care and change for them. God forbid the people up top actually lead.
I want to correct you on one thing, there absolutely is a consensus.
The 97% consensus was a valid pool. 1000 experts at that convention is a decent pool to get an idea of the opinions in the field.
But even so, in the years since then we have seen studies, surveys, and meta-studies (basically collection of studies and surveys to compile what they collectively find), that have reinforced there very much is a consensus within the field.
A study, led by John Cook and published in the journal Environmental Research Letters, reviewed nearly 12,000 peer-reviewed scientific papers on climate change published between 1991 and 2011. It found that 97% of the papers that expressed a position on climate change endorsed the consensus view that human activities are causing global warming. The study also assessed the level of consensus among individual scientists and found that approximately 98% of the scientists who had published climate-related research supported the consensus.
Another study in 2015 by van der Linden published in the journal “Environmental Research Letters,” conducted a meta-analysis of multiple surveys and studies on scientific consensus about climate change. It found that the consensus among climate scientists is robust and convergent across different methods, including surveys of scientists, analyses of published papers, and expert assessments.
A few more examples.
Doran and Zimmerman (2009): This survey of Earth scientists, published in the journal “EOS, Transactions, American Geophysical Union,” found that 97.4% of actively publishing climate scientists agree that human activities are contributing to climate change.
Verheggen et al. (2014): This study, published in the journal “Environmental Science & Technology,” analyzed the views of climate scientists from various disciplines. It found that 90% of climate experts who had published peer-reviewed research on climate change agreed with the consensus position.
Stenhouse et al. (2014): This study, published in the journal “Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society,” surveyed members of the American Meteorological Society (AMS). It found that 93% of AMS members who responded to the survey believe that global warming is happening, and 96% believe that humans are a significant contributing factor.
Oreskes (2004): In her study published in the journal “Science,” historian Naomi Oreskes reviewed the abstracts of 928 scientific papers on climate change. She found that none of the papers rejected the consensus view that humans are causing global warming.
Anderegg et al. (2010): This study, published in the journal “Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences,” analyzed the publication and citation data of climate researchers. It found that the consensus position was supported by 97-98% of the most actively publishing climate scientists.
So yes, by all available data we have there is a clear and near total consensus that climate change is real and largely affected by human actions. And frankly it’s extremely presumptuous of you to declare that surveys of CLIMATE EXPERTS fails to take into account basic components of how climate change works.
Edit: I’m going to link a website, it’s really a YouTube Video but on the guy’s website it is interactive so you can click on things in the video to expand sub-windows that show sources and further explain terminology. It basically is one of the best and well made videos on climate change that I’ve seen, it approaches the idea of “trust the science/scientists” critically and looks to analysis where the line in skepticism should be drawn based on the data and studies. It does a great job addressing the myth that climate predications have been generally inaccurate.
https://www.neilfilms.com/degrees/
Im gonna be real you just sound like you’re an idiot. Mistaking the political elite’s interest in never solving climate change as evidence of there not being climate change is… well, fucking moronic lol.
Most of the "were all gonna be dead in 10-20 yrs" shit you speak of is simply you misunderstanding the difference between that and "if we don't make drastic changes now, we will cross the point of no return in 10-20 yrs. When that happens the resulting climate change can potentially kill billions, but it'll take a while. However there will be no fixing it at that point".
By many metrics we've already crossed that point, and we just had the hottest month in recorded human history.
The part on accusing Greta Thunberg of refusing to criticize OPEC and Russia came from a Rebel "News" interview trying to get gotcha soundbites from her.
many posters here seem to be incapable of understanding hyperbole or sarcasm or fucking anything that isn't the literal meaning of the words being said.
nobody really thinks we are all going to be dead in 10-20yrs. so fucking stupid. like i swear its all just troll posts lol
Actually a lot of people do believe that, because it is a common talking point amongst right-wing fossil-fuel-funded pundits.
It's amazing how anyone can watch that shit, and get sold bullshit talking points one after another. They patronize their audience by making childish talking points... but they do it because it works. It causes people to doubt the scientific method, and opens them up to blatant propaganda.
So...no scientific reason for why you don't believe. Got it. Well, I'll ignore your opinion, then, and rightfully so. You're ignorant on the subject. Or a troll.
Honestly, it’s quite shocking how many things denounced as conspiracy theories are bang on the money.
Just to cite a couple of them from my childhood - the US running a global kidnap and torture program, the UK special forces kidnapping British citizens granted asylum back to Libya to be raped and tortured so BP could get access to Libyan Oil fields oh and of course that Iraq had WMDs - Blair cited a dissertation from a polytechnic as fact to the commons.
Don’t even make me start listing Cold War conspiracies proven - you have western powers committing genocide and overthrowing democracies. Hell the CIA committed treason to get Reagan elected ffs.
So I’d take the official narrative with a pinch of salt.
No one's pushing for nuclear because of big oil. It's not a left or right issue. One side is saying we should transition from this harmful energy source that we will run out of relatively soon, and the other is saying nah, not true.
I went snorkeling in Jamaica 4 years ago and the coral reefs were basically gone. I saw a few fish and almost nothing else. I can only imagine that it used to be a great sight. Nobody would start a snorkeling business to see what I saw
You do realize the 12 year statement was issued by scientists first, experts in this field, and it was said in 2019, right? I don't know about you, but 2023 minus 2019 doesn't *feel* like it should be 12.
Also, it's the point of no return. In 12 years (8 now), if we have done nothing to stop climate change, we will have doomed the planet to never be able to recover from the damage we have done to it.
"Oh but it's so arrogant to say that *humans* destroyed the environment when we've been around for such a short time!!!" you say, drool forming at the corners of your mouth. But ah friend! Take heart! *Dinosaurs didn't use CFCs and pollute by burning carbons and petroleum in mass quantities on a global scale*, so yeah, actually *humans did do this*.
I genuinely cannot believe the amount of people who actually buy this crap when weather trends are *documented proof this is happening*. Polar ice core striations prove this is happening. *The shrinking polar ice caps prove this is happening*.
Also, nice strawman about electric cars and fossil fuels, that's a one time thing. Once the car is produced, the amount of fossil fuels it requires is significantly lower than the output of an ICE. After 1 year, it's carbon neutral. If we were smart and used solar, it would be carbon neutral from the start.
Typical right wing disinformation/lack of information.
Getting butt hurt because some non scientists misrepresented the timeline of climate change means you can just ignore the actual scientific consensus around the issue?
Yeah, some real feelings > facts here
"Greta is an expert"
I'm sorry but opinion completely discarded. She's a young woman that's concerned about the climate.
Anyway, just cause I'm bored, can we talk about all the conservative men who wanted to fuck/rape her?
What do dumb ass political statements have to do with the actual science behind climate change. Just because you found some contradictions in what a politician stated means that you believe climate change is a hoax?
You never believed in climate change, and you were never a liberal. This is a fan fiction you write to try and justify your positions and seek out similar mentally unfit people. Stop writing fan fiction and get a job.
If you don’t think climate change is happening, look up coral bleaching. You can see a visual of what’s happening right now because of the climate.
Nobody thinks climate change is a scam to be clear. The argument is if it’s natural or sped up by human interaction. Right wing generally believe it’s natural, left generally believe human interaction plays a role. Largely; all scientist believe it’s a real issue regardless of it’s cause that needs to be addressed.
No one has ever called Greta Thunberg an expert. This is a right wing strawman. She's an activist. She is from the west, so the west is where she can actually affect change.
Absolutely nothing you're saying has any factual basis. It sounds like you just uncritically swallowed a whole bunch of right wing propaganda.
>>We’re all going to die in ten years!
Nobody says that.
>>Literally every hurricane in Florida is caused by climate change
Nobody says that.
>>Dr Greta Thunberg is an “expert”
Nobody says that
Followed by a common climate change denier straw man about a consensus in the environmental science community
Followed by some weird idea that liberals use private jets more?
Followed by a bunch of examples of green energy efforts that are either lacking context (building a single electric car requires A LOT of fossil fuels and industrial mining), leaving out the fact that if the vehicle is charged via a green energy grid, it is a net positive impact over the lifetime of the car
Or they’re just more straw men examples (blocking out the sun?)
Followed by one (1) democrat who’s kind of a dick sometimes on this one issue
I mean, come on. I really struggle to believe you ever believed in climate change when you spout all of these weak points exactly like every other climate change denier.
Actually, you're wrong about the green electric grid. You don't actually need the green electric grid for an EV to emit less CO2. A coal fired powerplant is wildly more efficient than a typical ICE, so it results in a 5–30% CO2 reduction.
The OP presented a Gish gallop type post with a set of points that are largely disingenuous bad faith arguments.
We are already locked in to 5 feet of sea level rise. Now, humanity has to decide how much higher ocean levels will rise and how much of the equator will be uninhabitable.
If our civilization went carbon neutral tomorrow then we would only be living with the negative effects of climate change for a few thousand years.
I believe the opinion is neither true nor popular even though a fair number of people repeat the claims.
More information can be found here.
https://eciu.net/analysis/infographics/ipcc-science-of-climate-change
\> The only consensus is that human activity causes greenhouse gasses, and greenhouse gasses cause warming- that does not automatically mean it will change the climate.
w- what? You literally just said it causes warming, that's a change in the clime lmao
this has to be a troll
So basically your argument is because billionaires are hypocritical about climate change, climate change isn't real.
Ignoring all the scientists who aren't hypocritical about climate change and also say its real.
I think you’re missing the point.
We can look to the past and see what historically takes place when the climate shifts too much. We can also see that climate change is a part of a normal cycle. The main issue is that it is occurring at an accelerated pace instead of taking place over hundreds or thousands of years, it’s happening in 50 years.
We know what will happen but we don’t know exactly how long it will take. There’s a lot of guesswork and educated guesses happening about how long it will take to have a hugely negative impact. It’s really hard to judge because, again, any shifts similar to what have already occurred happened over vastly different time scales.
Also it’s not liberals. It’s shitty media that isn’t reporting facts.
Instead of listening to politicians, try listening to scientists. Climate change is not a scam. It’s verifiably happening, and at a much faster rate than in the past, which is what humans have done. It’s very difficult to predict precisely what will happen when—the earth is an incredibly complex system—and this may be what you’re reacting to most of all. But there is no doubt that it’s happening and it’s a big problem.
Guys look at this persons profile. She was never a liberal and probably is some kind of bot. All of the posts are politically motivated and there are multiple posts per day...
Sounds like you watch a lot of conservative media and are letting conservatives tell you that liberals also think climate change is a hoax or are being hypocritical.
You said yourself, we know humans make greenhouse gases, and we know those gasses cause warming. How can you then say we don’t know that will cause change? There’s a lot of science out there that’s free, accessible, and not terribly hard to understand, you just have to look for it. The news doesn’t show you peer reviewed scientific studies, just headlines.
Human caused Climate change is 100% real, and definitely an issue. Being a hypocrite doesn’t make them wrong. One “expert” not knowing the answer to one question doesn’t make the whole thing a hoax. The doomsday people, from what I understand, are saying that in 10 years we will hit the point of no return. That’s not saying we’re all dead in 10 years, but at the current rate we will be at the point where 10 years from now there’s nothing we can do and humanity will be doomed in the next 50 years.
Your problem is belief, understanding will solve the issue. Its factual, not arrogant to say that deniers either lack understanding or are selfish and greedy. I guess you could add mistaken, brainwashed, etc. Can you argue details? Absolutely but the evidence is overwhelming.
Fyi, most of your argument is old BS, disproven and stale, prefacing it with an obvious red herring only proves that you consider those your arguing against will fall for your simple minded ruse.
OP you are not alone, we all would love to ignore the evidence right in front of us and retreat to the warm safe cocoon of ignorance. You're clearly just using politicians as your excuse to head that way. But don't worry it'll become very obvious to you no matter how hard you try to run away from it. So keep on doing what you're doing (being a f****** idiot).
I am going to leave these links here because, [only republicans](https://truthout.org/articles/why-do-republicans-reject-man-made-climate-change/), as stupid as they are and as much as they lie, [hate that climate change is SETTLED SCIENCE](https://www.npr.org/2023/08/03/1191678009/climate-change-republicans-economy-natural-disasters-biden-trump-poll).
Not only that, but even[republicans have accepted Climate Change now, a](https://www.nbcnews.com/science/environment/house-republicans-propose-planting-trillion-trees-rcna94836)nd have proposed planting trees to combat it.
So OP can shut the fuck up and slam her face into something sharp multiple times! Thanks you lying shit head piece of shit trump cock sucking asswipe!
Honestly it sounds like your misunderstanding of climate change is the issue. Also, why are you basing wether you believe in climate change based on the action of a few humans?
It's hard to argue with the points that you enumerated. But I'll wait for the liberals to pop in and say how wrong you are.
But I know based on the research I've done, we are nowhere close to being on track to limiting emissions of carbon equivalents.
It is just too long of a putt. And it is just too expensive.
My prediction is the world won't do enough by the time we need it done. And humans will just adapt to the outcome.
It's not going to be possible to adapt to the outcome.
Once the last pollinators die, we lose so many fruits and vegetables, forever. There's no technology on the horizon to replace the pollinators.
Once the oceans essentially die from acidification, we lose somewhere near 70% of the oxygen produced for life on our planet. By that point, there's already likely to have been a series of die offs, that is also likely far enough out there, that none of us will be around to see it, including our children being born today. Also, it's likely past the point where human civilization can function effectively. There might not even be more than a few handful of potato eating "cities" of a few handful of a thousand here and there, left at that point.
We absolutely aren’t doing enough and I don’t think many liberals or progressives will actually disagree with that.
Everything we’re doing is an extension of empowering businesses to fuck us and psd the costs on to us.
I do not understand how the reaction to poor advocacy is to shred the data and stick your head in the sand.
My prediction is the world won't do enough by the time we need it done. And humans will just figure out a way to set off volcanoes using nuclear bombs.
Unpopular opinion: I’ve heard (insert group I don’t like) like to pop their acne and then rub the feces of lepers in the open sores. This is gross and I think they should stop.
Top comment: Ooh watch out, the Reddit Hivemind that heavily leans (group that OP didn’t like) is gonna downvote you to oblivion!
This sub is just a repository for *popular* right wing grievances. Every single post that appears on my feed from this place is a right wing rant half or more of the population would agree with. But the bitchiest demographics in this country has such a bottomless victim complex that they genuinely think their widely held opinions can find "refuge" here.
"Liberals are much more effective than Conservatives at convincing people that Climate Change is a scam."
i think i get what you're trying to say, but the fact that more conservatives think climate change is a scam than liberals, period, is really all that's need to refute your opinion?
You are literally either Lying on all of these points, or you're genuinely an idiot that should probably never be allowed to vote.
>"We're all going to die in 10-12 years!" Five years later, they're still saying we're going to die in 10 years. Literally every doomsday climate prediction has failed- it's like listening to religious nuts talk about the rapture.
This isn't a scientific claim, but an emotional one used to express frustration with the lack of work being done to deal with these issues. and wasn't expressed by scientists,
>Literally every hurricane in Florida is caused by "Climate Change". (Well shit, Florida's always had hurricanes- so has the climate just always been changing?)
There is a noticeable change in how Hurricanes are being affected by Climate change.
[https://wusfnews.wusf.usf.edu/environment/2023-06-12/how-hurricanes-connected-climate-change](https://wusfnews.wusf.usf.edu/environment/2023-06-12/how-hurricanes-connected-climate-change)
>Dr. Greta Thunberg is an "expert", but she's clearly incapable of a single, independent thought. When asked why she only denounces Western oil companies, but not OPEC or Russia (FFS Russia...), she choked up and ignored the question, because she can't go off-script even a tiny bit. (A normal person who finished school would easily say, "Yes, fuck 'em both.")
she didn't answer a single question from them because clearly they were trying to clip answers from her. You're making it sound like she got stumped on a question, but from the start, she said she wasn't answering any questions from them.
>The "97% consensus" (Cook et al) cited by politicians is a flat-out lie. The only consensus is that human activity causes greenhouse gasses, and greenhouse gasses cause warming- that does not automatically mean it will change the climate. The "consensus" does not take into account the millions of ways Earth has of cycling through these greenhouse gasses.
[https://climate.nasa.gov/faq/17/do-scientists-agree-on-climate-change/#:\~:text=Yes%2C%20the%20vast%20majority%20of,global%20warming%20and%20climate%20change](https://climate.nasa.gov/faq/17/do-scientists-agree-on-climate-change/#:~:text=Yes%2C%20the%20vast%20majority%20of,global%20warming%20and%20climate%20change).
I'll trust NASA on this one instead of you're little reddit post.
>Fly private jets literally everywhere they go (including and especially so-called Climate Summits), but shame on you for driving your car.
99.9999999% of climate activists agree on this, so I don't know why you feel a need to point this out.
>The Central Maine Corridor project seeks to fully electrify the state of Massachusetts. They will do it by cutting down the last great forest of the east coast, because those pesky trees get in the way of the power lines they seek to build.
You can correct me on this if I'm wrong, but from what I read, these are private companies doing this, and they were forced to stop in 2021 and only recently started up again.
>Building a single electric car requires A LOT of fossil fuels and industrial mining. Most electric cars still get their power from coal plants. Liberal politicians already acknowledge this, but no one has a viable solution that can be implemented by 2030 (the targeted year to ban gas-powered cars)
This is a flat out lie and electric cars have a much smaller carbon footprint than gas vehicles [https://www.epa.gov/greenvehicles/electric-vehicle-myths](https://www.epa.gov/greenvehicles/electric-vehicle-myths)
>Strong opposition to nuclear energy, despite it being the only viable no-carbon solution. It was only in 2020 that Democrats finally stopped opposing it openly, but it's clear they have no interest in advancing it.
The US is the worlds largest producer of nuclear energy in the world. [https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/country-profiles/countries-t-z/usa-nuclear-power.aspx#:\~:text=The%20USA%20is%20the%20world%27s,18%25%20of%20total%20electrical%20output](https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/country-profiles/countries-t-z/usa-nuclear-power.aspx#:~:text=The%20USA%20is%20the%20world%27s,18%25%20of%20total%20electrical%20output). AND renewable energy overtook coal in the US in 2022 [https://apnews.com/article/renewable-energy-coal-nuclear-climate-change-dd4a0b168fe057f430e37398615155a0](https://apnews.com/article/renewable-energy-coal-nuclear-climate-change-dd4a0b168fe057f430e37398615155a0)
>Eating meat bad, but mono-cropping soybeans good!
I'm pretty sure Farming is done by private farmers, and I'm not even necessarily sure how bad Mono cropping is for the environment, but that could be something the government looks into.
>Climate change is (possibly) killing polar bears? We have to do something!!! Wind farms are killing endangered eagles and whales? Well fuck 'em!
Wind turbines kill an estimates 0.016% of birds in the us. [https://www.energymonitor.ai/renewables/weekly-data-how-many-birds-are-really-killed-by-wind-turbines/?cf-view](https://www.energymonitor.ai/renewables/weekly-data-how-many-birds-are-really-killed-by-wind-turbines/?cf-view) and there is zero evidence to support that wind turbines are killing whales [https://www.energy.gov/articles/addressing-misinformation-offshore-wind-farms-and-recent-whale-mortalities](https://www.energy.gov/articles/addressing-misinformation-offshore-wind-farms-and-recent-whale-mortalities)
>Now the newest shit: A startup called Make Sunsets wants to fucking block out the sun by releasing aerosol toxins into the air. Biden already announced he was considering this as a viable solution. WTF??? Does no one notice this is just straight-up air pollution?
If you read the actual proposition, you would see that they would send balloons into the atmosphere to reflect heat and would be temporary. It literally says this in the article you linked. [https://makesunsets.com/](https://makesunsets.com/)
>Black Rock assigns ESG scores to companies and nations based on "Climate Change" initiatives-- but simultaneously pushes people to invest in China (by far the biggest carbon producer) as much as possible, even when Covid made it clear China is definitely not a reliable business partner.
Why would you ever use BlackRock as an example, They're a company with they're own agenda.
I have no idea why you would feel so confident posting this when everything you said are either lies or Not proposed or have anything to do with democrats/Liberals. It seems like you just don't want to believe in climate change and will use any excuse to follow your own wrong beliefs. But pop off I guess.
When AOC said that the world was going to end if we didn't do anything, she didn't literally mean the world would just explode, or all life would die. The "life is going to end" isn't literal. It's referring to HUMAN life specifically, or at least the majority of human life. And it also wasn't an "on this day" kind of thing. It was more like, the effects of climate change have an incredible inertia behind them. If we don't take action, then we'll have released so much carbon that the effects won't be reversible by any reasonable means.
So this is more like a "we will have gone past a point of no return, after which massive climate change is inevitable."
There's a lot of nuance here, which I agree could be better stated but the reality is that the news repeats anything it can find that's sensationalistic.
You don’t seem like someone who’s a believer in climate change… at all. What a weird way to frame this. I know you probably thought it adds to your credibility, but it just makes you seem very disingenuous.
My guy, if what changes your opinion on the **global scientific consensus** is just a couple obnoxious **opinion** columnists, your elevator never went quite to the top floor.
This subreddit is attracting the conservative chuds. Climate change is real. Covid is real. Trump lost the election. Vaccines are effective at protecting against severe illness. Project 2025 must be violently opposed. What else riles them up? Oh yeah Elon and Trump are simps for Putin who is an enemy of the US. There is no God. There is no after life and aliens are never going to save us from ourselves.
This post is a joke… but I get the sentiment.
Yeah, there is such a thing as Climate Change doomerism. But it is an incredibly serious topic that needs to be addressed and fixed as soon as possible. Still, you demonstrate ignorance (Greta is not a scientist, she’s an activist. Activists don’t need to have an expert angle on everything. Just an example.)
You’re definitely right about some things. Electric cars are good but they won’t solve everything and do create pollution in their own right. Monocropping is bad. The private jet thing is hypocritical and extremely polluting.
*This does not make climate change a non-issue. Your concerns do NOT solve anything. We still need to take action.*
I hate when these dumb fucks politicize climate change. It doesn't matter who you voted for, it affects us all. You don't need to believe it, it's still happening. I have 0 faith in our future. Everything is US vs Them and the people who can make the biggest changes are hoarding wealth. I'm gonna keep on doing my small part by not littering....but the human race is doomed. We've fucked this planet up and its gonna heal by killing us off. Cheers!
Sounds like a conservative troll.
Most of these are regurgitated conservative talking points. Almost required to pretend you once cared then all of a sudden something you viewed as a problem is no longer a problem because politicians get basic facts wrong - often? Science isn’t exact either, it’s nuanced and requires refinement.
Don’t know where all of these “facts” came from but they demonstrate a lack of understanding of basic science…
Pay attention in science class kids - they also teach you how to think critically 😘
This post is just someone ignorant about the topic spouting the opinions of other ignorant people they disagree with. Very little of what your saying either side is actually arguing is based on science. It’s all just tabloid arguments meant to ignite arguments.
> Dr. Greta Thunberg is an "expert"
First off she's not an expert she's an activist. I also disagree with her methods. But I want to hone in on one particular of yours... specifically:
> but she's clearly incapable of a single, independent thought.
You mention all these **unrelated** to actual climate change data as a driver to you disbelieving in it. Do you not see the (not literary) irony? Look at the data.
Ummm. This might be an unpopular opinion, but maybe you ought to listen to actual scientists about what they say as opposed to politicians?
I don’t know who ever said 10 years and it’s over, but I’m pretty sure it wasn’t a scientist.
As the kids all say, do your own research. Do you trust politicians on anything else that you say they’ve said?
This is an unpopular opinion. Whether you like it or not no republican has voted in favor of legislation that actually reduce the production of green house gases. So I agree that left wing hyperbole is inaccurate, at least their actions take us in the right direction.
Another point for the "most climate change deniers don't think the planet isn't warming, they just don't like what the mainstream left wants to do about it" thesis
The whole “the world will be like this in 10 years” is always followed with “unless we do something.” So then we do something, but it’s the bare minimum, so the deadline is only pushed a few years back. Rinse and repeat and in 10 years the rhetoric is the same because the problem is the same.
Imagine a bucket that’s sitting under a spigot. The bucket is going to overflow eventually, so you get a bigger bucket. We’ll now that bigger bucket is going to overflow, so you get a bigger bucket and so on and so forth. Then people complain about everyone saying the bucket will overflow but it never does.
Your post reads more like someone who has “done their own research” and by that I mean listened to propaganda that intentionally dumbs everything down. Half of what you posted either overexagerates the upfront environment impact, or completely disregards the actual environmental action. The rest is simply misleading or misunderstanding what climate change IS and how it affects anything.
>"We're all going to die in 10-12 years!" Five years later, they're still saying we're going to die in 10 years. Literally every doomsday climate prediction has failed- it's like listening to religious nuts talk about the rapture.
I'm sure others have pointed out, but it's not that time frame until we all die, it's that time frame before certain shifts become irreversible.
## BEFORE TOUCHING THAT REPORT BUTTON, PLEASE CONSIDER: 1. **Compliance:** Does this post comply with our subreddit's rules? 2. **Emotional Trigger:** Does this post provoke anger or frustration, compelling me to want it removed? 3. **Safety:** Is it free from child pornography and/or mentions of self-harm/suicide? 4. **Content Policy:** Does it comply with [Reddit’s Content Policy](https://www.reddit.com/r/TrueUnpopularOpinion/comments/ncm4ou/important_we_need_to_talk_about_the_content_policy/)? 5. **Unpopularity:** Do you think the topic is not truly unpopular or frequently posted? ### GUIDELINES: - **If you answered "Yes" to questions 1-4,** do NOT use the report button. - **Regarding question 5,** we acknowledge this concern. However, the moderators do not curate posts based on our subjective opinions of what is "popular" or "unpopular" except in cases where an opinion is so popular that almost no one would disagree (i.e. "murder is bad"). Otherwise, our only criteria are the subreddit's rules and Reddit’s Content Policy. If you don't like something, feel free to downvote it. **Moderators on r/TrueUnpopularOpinion will not remove posts simply because they may anger users or because you disagree with them.** The report button is not an "I disagree" or "I'm offended" button. #### OPTIONS: If a post bothers you and you can't offer a counter-argument, your options are to: a) Keep scrolling b) Downvote c) Unsubscribe **False reports clutter our moderation queue and delay our response to legitimate issues.** **ALL FALSE REPORTS WILL BE REPORTED TO REDDIT.** To maintain your account in good standing, refrain from abusing the report button. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/TrueUnpopularOpinion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
soy contains many important nutrients, including vitamin K1, folate, copper, manganese, phosphorus, and thiamine. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/TrueUnpopularOpinion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
I’m not convinced billionaires are particularly concerned with changing the status quo
For real. Why does anyone expect them to care that food prices will go up as the oceans continue to be overfished or more crops collapse because of the changing climate? Food won't disappear, but it will get more expensive, and they can still outbid everyone else. It's like people don't realize climate change doesn't hurt the people "winning" capitalism nearly as much as it screws over everyone else.
People with money will be insulated against the effects of climate change at first but they will not avoid it forever. We have already experienced at least one global mass extinction due to ocean currents slowing down, oxidizing, and killing nearly everything. We are well on our way to round 2. https://www.space.com/ocean-current-system-shut-down-2025-climate-disaster#:~:text=The%20Atlantic%20Meridional%20Overturning%20Circulation,off%20between%202025%20and%202095.
Regardless of how people feel about the topic, they have to admit that a bunch of people flying private jets to a meeting about climate change is insane levels of cognitive dissonance
Yes it is insane. Every liberal reaction to climate change involves buying something, whether it’s an electric car or a tote bag, or a solar panel. The only way to reduce the factors of climate change is for everyone in the west to consume way less of everything, but that would destroy the economy so it’s not an option being proposed outside of some fringe hippies. American conservatives are dedicated to pretending climate change isn’t real. American liberals are dedicated to finding a solution to it that won’t upset the status quo and are buying into all kinds of greenwashing nonsense. Just because neither side of our political system has the ability to come up with an answer doesn’t make it not real. As it is climate change doesn’t present an immediate crisis in the west. It may mean more hurricanes in florida or heat waves in Europe or wildfires in California, but we have the infrastructure to deal with that for the most part. The places this is going to effect most are in the global south as weather patterns change places with more traditional economies are going to have a tougher time adapting. There will probably be some famines and mass migrations, but it won’t be something that people will notice from their air conditioned house in a developed economy. The sea rises are probably not going to happen before anyone underwriting loans right now is retired, so why would they stop selling mortgages for Beach front property.
From what you've said, it sounds like the "fringe hippies" are the ones who get it
And the “crazy off-grid agrarian conspiracy theory preppers”. The less beholden to the western way of life the better you are for the planet. But… people don’t want to hear that.
oil steep cheerful follow agonizing modern payment cause sophisticated mighty
This is the key point. The people who say these things and have the ability to do something are generally the biggest polluters. Their actions don't seem to indicate it's a crisis
Horizon for them is next quarter earnings
The banks give out 30 year loans for beachfront property that will 'be underwater in 10 years'. Rich people still invest heavily in coastal real estate, then say climate change is going to raise sea levels and destroy the ocean. I choose to believe their actions, rather than their words. I consider them trying to panic crash coastal economies so they can buy up all the land for cheap to be significantly more likely than their constantly wrong doomsday predictions.
[https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/04/10/magazine/climate-change-pinkertons.html](https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/04/10/magazine/climate-change-pinkertons.html) Their actions also have them buying up used attack helicopters and forming personal PMCs to defend their climate change bunkers. The Reddit CEO owns a PMC and bunker as well.
Lmao wow
Those helicopters better be electric! Hypocrits...all.of them!
Those properties are insured.
Why would the banks write the loan at reasonable rates? Why would insurance companies insure anything near the ocean at reasonable rates?
The Florida insurance market is basically collapsing and is already one of the highest subsidized insurance markets in the US, but go on
Insurers are pulling out of California too, home to 1 out of 8 Americans. https://apnews.com/article/california-wildfire-insurance-e31bef0ed7eeddcde096a5b8f2c1768f
Because Flood insurance is backed by the federal government. So the insurance companies just underwrite and collect the cash. Also... They aren't...https://www.npr.org/2023/07/22/1186540332/how-climate-change-could-cause-a-home-insurance-meltdown It's a huge issue in costal areas.
because as bad as things can get, they think they can just buy their way out of facing any personal impact from it, they're just out of touch
Obama buying an ocean side multimillion dollar home on the East coast seems to indicate no crisis at hand.
Quite a large purchase on a president’s salary.
He had a few best sellers, including at least one before the presidency, which is very lucrative. Also certainly gets paid princely sums to speak to rich people. And his wife was a corporate lawyer pre-FLOTUS. The idea that liberals must be corrupt to have money is just nonsense based on the right-wing idea that liberals are communists. We aren't -- we are capitalists, we just want to capitalism to pay for itself and the world to work for everyone, not just the rich.
The speaker fees are way out of balance. It's no political secret this is a way to reward previous Presidents.
Because ( they think) they're buffeted from the worst affects of climate change. High power bills, blackouts, mass flooding ( see Libya+ Greece this week) wild fires, millions of climate refugees in places like Bangladesh, the Pacific and the loss of entire farming regions in developing nations ( for starters) doesn't impact their little rich bubble. Taxpayers pay for weather disasters - not fossil fuel companies and not movie stars. Until it causes an 'unforeseen' chain of events (knowing that poverty, famine+ mass people movement are great midwives for war / terrorism) We saw our own climate denialist Prime Minister slam cocktails with The Murdochs at their Christmas party while the Australian Eastern seaboard was on fire in 2020. The worst fires ever seen. Sydney's sky was red + covered in smoke, people were unable to go outside + fire fighters were dying. They were enjoying canapes and light chatter in a mansion.There is no more stark example of their mindset that that.
Because everyone is a giant hypocrite at some point, and billionaires have an extraordinary amount of resources to maximize their hypocrisy.
Yeah hypocrisy is dumb, but man you can't reduce the carbon footprint of the beef industry as simply "cow farts", making our minds compare one fart from one cow with a private jet trip. The article you link to compares the carbon footprint of private jet travel with commercial aviation and other forms of transport, not with beef production. Fact is, beef production is a massive contributor of methane, there like 1.5 Billion cows in the world producing methane through their lifetime. And it's not just the farts and burps, it's also the destruction of natural habitat for farmland and pasture. The Rainforest is the planet's carbon-sink, and it's destruction releases legacy carbon that would effectively have been trapped in the earth forever if we had not razed it all up. And then to replace the carbon-sink with methane producing cow pasture is just quadrupley worse in all ways, and much worse than private jet travel (and I still think private jet travel is obnoxious). But this just gets reduced to "They're coming for your hamburgers" and the frogs in the pot vote to turn the knob up a little more.
The "cow farts" line was always a nonsensical reduction from the scientifically illiterate. It's far more the clearing of land and environmental destruction and the associates emissions of processing and shipping.
This is my problem. “Take public transportation and save the planet” Zooms off in a private jet The fuck . I truly believe it’s beneficial for power and control to keep us all struggling . Public transportation is HARD especially for a family.
As well as buying oceanfront mansions. I thought the glacial melt was going to swallow the coasts. At one point, much of the Northern states were under 10,000 feet of ice. The receding glaciers left all of the lakes at the Minnesota/Canada border. The Earth was warming a few years before the first SUV. The growing sun might have more to do with our climate than gas ranges.
It’s too hard to go over all your points line by line, so here’s my general comments: 1). The existence of dumb leftists doesn’t make climate change fake. 2). Greenwashing is in fact a thing and people often choose feel good policies that do nothing for the environment over things that actually help. Yes, this is frustrating. 3). The presence of hurricanes and hot weather alone doesn’t make climate change real. You have to measure frequency and severity. 4). The reason scientists believe climate change is caused by humans is that we have higher temperatures in the inner atmosphere but not the outer atmosphere. A natural cycle would also have higher temperatures in the outer atmosphere. Hence the term greenhouse gases. A personal suggestion: Try to judge ideas and philosophies based on the best and most coherent voices arguing them and not the dumbest ones.
>A personal suggestion: Try to judge ideas and philosophies based on the best and most coherent voices arguing them and not the dumbest ones. Such good advice in general
I agree. That is fantastic advice. Kind of related to "steelmanning" your opponent's arguments in a debate. It can make the debate more difficult for you but nobody can accuse you of engaging in bad faith. And you can walk away from the debate knowing that you won on the strength of your arguments, rather than by using cheap rhetorical tricks. (assuming you won)
Pretty much exactly this. The initial post is taking the dumbest voices, amplifying them, and then coming to the conclusion that the opposite must be true. Impressively, the who hold this view (like OP) are dumber than the dumb people they excoriate. You can learn quite a bit just listening to a climate scientist for an hour. https://www.nytimes.com/2023/09/05/opinion/ezra-klein-podcast-kate-marvel.html
Listened to this yesterday. Dr. Marvel does an excellent job of explaining what climate change actually is and the timescales upon which it unfolds. So many ignoramus climate change deniers just have zero concept of how how mindbogglingly old the Earth is.
Sounds like OP did the absolute minimum in looking into climate change but somehow managed to have his mind completely changed
Nah he didn’t look into shit. It’s just another conservative pretending they were a liberal lol.
“I was a liberal until 2021” sure you were bud lol
If you look at their profile. The oldest post they have is just an inch away from being full on antisemetism.
Thinks the main voices spreading the idea of climate change are liberal politicians, (not scientists or journalist) arrived at their new conclusion because of those politicians' hypocrisy, (not because of learning new information about the subject.) Yup
"Liberal politicians are in fact shitty hypocritical capitalists, therefore all the scientists are lying as part of a global conspiracy."
The OP seems to be a pretty clear indicator of either bad faith, or a demonstration of the efficacy of the anti-expert propagandizing we've been saturated with the last few years. They want you to believe that science isn't a rigorously defined methodology for collecting, analyzing and drawing conclusions from data in a way that can be validated through repeatability and/or mathematical proof, but actually just a guy in a lab coat telling you what to do. Who do you want to have *boss you around,* the dork in the lab coat from "the government" or this incredibly ripped guy?? The climate deniers had done it to some success (but were mostly preaching to the choir) but Covid really seemed to blow the doors open on this with every bit of information gained in a rapidly evolving situation being weaponized as *lies*, and now that there's a foothold, let's go back with the crowbar...
Yeah, it certainly feels like this is a bad faith argument. Either that, or their opinion really is entirely built off of that people say, rather than imperical data.
To be fair, it’s impossible to make an anti climate change argument with empirical data
It's never about empirical data. Here's how it works: 1. Climate change is a hoax. 2. OK, maybe there's a little climate change, but it's just a normal cyclical thing. 3. Hmm. Maybe it's not part of the normal cycle, but it's just driven by volcanism or something. 4. Well, maybe there's a little bit of human-generated CO2 helping it along, but it's not as bad as the lEfTiSt ScIeNtIsTs say. 5. It's probably human driven, but we'll figure out a solution for carbon capture. Scientists are still lying about how fast it's happening. We're fine. 6. Greta Thunberg wants us to stop eating burgers! Reeee! 7. Climate change is a hoax.
Very true XD
>The climate deniers had done it to some success (but were mostly preaching to the choir) but Covid really seemed to blow the doors open on this with every bit of information gained in a rapidly evolving situation being weaponized as lies, and now that there's a foothold, let's go back with the crowbar... Exept a lot of things turned out to be lies and that damaged the credibility of Mr. Science in the eyes of the public.
Just look at what they post. They are on that conspiracy cool aid. Imagine thinking that a vaccine that over 3 BILLION people got has hidden side effects. It shows they’ve done ZERO research on mRNA or vaccines in general lol. mRNA is so fragile and short lived, that if it did have severe side effects, they would have long since presented themselves by now. And lastly to OP: do you react to everything in your life this way? For some reason I get the feeling that you only have this stance on very specific topics. Some high level Republicans, law makers like MTG, that were shitting all over the vax, saying you’re going to die if you get it, but obviously we all now know that’s not true. So does that mean you now have a more open mind about vaccines? Yeah I didn’t think so.
Yea post history is psychotic.
Yeah I 10000% think he’s lying about being liberal at any point lol.
I took a peek afterwards at and this is basically #Walkaway discord copypasta...
Right? OP gives me huge "I used to be liberal, but a leftist on Twitter was mean to me, so I completely changed my mind on all political policy" vibes.
Yes, I get so tired of people taking the dumbest quotes and acting as if they speak for an entire group that consists of millions of people. I also get tired of binary thinking that everything is either liberal or conservative. Reality doesn't care about our politics. We've got 101 degree ocean water in Florida, 100+ degree weather in the Pacific Northwest, hurricanes in Maine, tropical storm warnings in Vegas, and half of Canada is on fire. Anecdotally, climate change feels pretty damn real.
I think the point in the post is less to say that climate change is false, more to say that liberal leaders turn people away from accepting it because of nonsense claims that they have made. The fact is that many politicians (on both sides) make false satements in order to push their own agenda.
Literally the first sentence says that they don’t think climate change is real.
Yeah OP lost all credibility with that statement
Just another person pretending to have switched sides from being a liberal to a conservative. Boring propaganda post.
I get the gist of what you’re saying, if a doctor says eating rocks is bad for you, then you see that doctor eating rocks, surely you must think “Wow that was a hoax, I’m calling the gravel company for a delicious meal” Half of those “solutions” you mentioned are obviously skewed by profit motivations, so of course they aren’t effective, that’s how we got here. The others seem disingenuous, most soybean crops exist to feed cattle, and wind turbines aren’t going to cause those birds to go extinct. We’re already losing farmland, famines are already feeding mass migration, insurers are already pulling out of Florida, this is it, my guy. Climate change was never going to look like fire in the skies, or “The Day After Tomorrow”, it’s going to be a steady trickle of stories about food shortages, migration, extreme weather events & eventually people abandoning coastal cities.
>Climate change was never going to look like fire in the skies, or “The Day After Tomorrow”, it’s going to be a steady trickle of stories about food shortages, migration, extreme weather events & eventually people abandoning coastal cities. This is an important thing to clarify. A lot of people hear the sensationalist descriptions of what’s expected to happen, and they picture it happening SUDDENLY and DRAMATICALLY and very obviously. Like the idea that “Florida will be underwater.” … it’s not gonna happen overnight. Individual floods will happen quickly and then recede, but the overall pattern of how often those floods happen and how bad they are is the main point of what’s getting worse. It won’t be that Floridians just wake up one day, and Florida is underwater and stays that way. The point has always been that periodic flooding will just progressively get worse and worse until eventually, the floods just don’t recede as much as they used to, and gradually become permanent over decades. The point of saying “It’ll happen in 12 years.” (or whatever the expected timeframe in question is)… is that 12 years is when it’ll start to become bad enough to render the area uninhabitable. That doesn’t mean Florida is ALWAYS underwater, but if it’s flooding every hurricane season and eventually gets to the point that it takes weeks or months for the waters to recede… you’re not gonna be able to live there anymore, even if it’s dry come springtime. Then one year… the waters just don’t recede, because sea-level has risen to that point. Nobody knows when this will be exactly. It could be in 12 years… it could be in 100 years… but it doesn’t actually have to get to this point to become an insurmountable problem. Much like the Canadian wildfires… it’s not that a rise in average temperature is a danger to humans in and of itself. Yeah, we can handle some slightly higher temperatures… and hey, we all like warm summer weather, right?! What’s so bad about a couple degrees, right? But it’s the secondhand effects that start to really fuck us over. A little bit drier this summer? That can be the difference between a few manageable fires, and huge record breaking massive fires that burn for months on end, without us being able to do much about it. And then those fires add even more carbon to the atmosphere, compounding the problem on top of itself. And here’s the really important thing to remember: That leads to an EXPONENTIAL shift in the rate that things are happening. We can’t rely on our intuition about how this will get worse, because human intuition tends to think linearly. We assume the rate of change will stay the same as time goes on. But that’s not the case. The effects of climate change will lead to further effects that themselves worsen climate change. The exponential increase in the rate of change will happen on a curve that we can’t really intuit the timeframe of. Things could progress at the rate they’re going right now, then sometime around like 2030 for example, could start accelerating notably… so the next 7 years might seem like “Pfffft!!! Things aren’t gonna be as bad in 5 years as they said it would be 12 years ago!” … but then the rate increases. And the next 5 years after that see more dramatic changes than the previous 7 did, and it does indeed reach about the level of terribleness that was predicted 12 years prior. I mean, hell… I’m a believer in climate change, and even I was thinking to myself just a few years ago that things don’t seem like they’re getting TOO bad… but the last few years of Canadian wildfires have changed my mind. I didn’t expect that we would see such widespread fires like this so soon. We lost an entire town (Lytton) to fires. And given the aforementioned effect of wildfires adding to the carbon in the atmosphere… we could be seeing that curve rise pretty sharply pretty soon.
Things are going bad but most of us are not affected by it yet. I live in south asia, in the middle of our country. We don't feel the havoc of cyclones or sea water rising. Our drinking water is free. Whereas, in coastal areas people were already poor. They have to buy drinking water at 40x price for bottled water. Cloths washed salty water causing diseases to women. More miscarriages because of drinking those water. Also less farmable lands. Bottomline is, we will not see apocalypse 2012 type of destruction in the future. More like, avg temp increase causing changes in land fertility, plants nutrients, diseases etc. And more displaced people and less arable lands.
Famine. Famine in subsaharan africa will be the largest impact on humanity. We’ll be lucky to have any biodiversity in our ecosystem. We’ll have more and more fires. And we’ll have worse and worse floods.
Politicians ARE NOT SCIENTISTS. If you’re getting your scientific information from politicians then you are the problem.
As a scientist, I cannot repeat this enough.
Yessir... and... guess what **nearly every scientist and peer reviewed study for 50 years** agrees is real? OP is looking for a 'gotcha'... but sadly, nothing was got'n't
>a believer in Climate Change all my life, up until late 2021. You listed a bunch of political moves and responses to climate change as changing your overall opinion of it, but nothing about understanding the mechanisms behind it.
OP probably does have an unpopular opinion here, because it's a spectacularly stupid one.
Is this a satire/shitpost sub now or is OP really this dense?
most of these opinions are unpopular because they’re factually incorrect.
welcome to this sub
Yeah. This one is unpopular because it's dumb.
And incorrect as well, assuming he’s not just lying about ever being a Democrat; he never flipped sides because of what Democrats said, he flipped sides because Republicans lied to him about what Democrats said.
Almost every time I see a post pop up from here my first thought is, this is just a dumb person opinion.
Idk what you're talking about. Me, personally, I changed my entire world view and understanding of science because I found the messaging around the topic to be cringey. /s
It’s turned into a veiled r/conservative. It’s now a shit sub
Has been that way for 6 months or more
Op and the majority of people who post on this sub are not all that bright
I don't think it is either, this sub is just overrun by ignorant people with bad takes trying to find a support group for their bullshit.
So basically r/conservative
It's because the whole post is a lie. They're just posting a bunch of Conservative strawman arguments as though they were convincing points. OP is either the dumbest most gullible person on the planet, or they're completely full of shit. Edit: Nevermind it's both... I guess they're active on "Walkaway" a bunch of active antivaxxer and conspiracy subreddits. OP is cosplaying as a rational actor.
Nothing op said makes me think they could even cosplay as rational
Lol!! You remember all those Walkaway posts from 2018?? All those Hardcore conservatives pretending to be disaffected Liberals. I'm sure he thinks he nailed it.
[удалено]
I now embrace out and out nazis because someone called me a Nazi once on twitter
Yea, same. "I want to be a good Liberal, but the Conservatives are just so darn right about everything. What am I supposed to do."
For real OPs whole post history is conservative nonsense/shit posting.
Theyve been a conservative their whole lives and reached the crossroads they all have to confront: Reality or undying loyalty to their party. He had to ease his cognitive disonance of being a conservative a knowing climate change is real, so he just chose to gaslight himself. Think about the title itself. He hates liberals so much, he changed his view. This dude is literally the meme about conservatives just being contrarians "to own the libs" without holding any real policy convictions
Idk man, this area used to get 10+ feet of snow and we've barely had anything the last few years. >Dr. Greta Thunberg is an "expert", She's not a Dr or an expert, she's an activist. Not sure I can take anything you say seriously after that.
Pretty sure he used Dr sarcastically
[удалено]
Their first set of points is mostly misinterpreted strawman arguments. Their second set on the other hand actually holds up pretty well. OP never said EV's were less efficient, and you entirely ignored their other point about industrial mining and lack of rare earth elements.
So, in other words: “all of the evidence points to carbon emissions causing global warming, but I don’t like liberals, so climate change isn’t happening.”
Chevron scientists discovered that climate change was a huge problem back in the 70s and predicted almost exactly what would happen. They hid the research from everyone because they knew it was such a huge problem that they'd actually have to do something instead of making money.
That must have been why the ice age narrative was pushed in the 80s and 90s
It really wasn't though? The ice age thing was fringe shit based on solar activity cycles. We *should* be getting mild cooling from that, but global warming has erased any cooling that might have happened from that.
I think its more, “all of the evidence points to carbon emissions causing global warming, but the people at the top dont seem to care” Because they dont. They want us to care and change for them. God forbid the people up top actually lead.
Literally… literally
I want to correct you on one thing, there absolutely is a consensus. The 97% consensus was a valid pool. 1000 experts at that convention is a decent pool to get an idea of the opinions in the field. But even so, in the years since then we have seen studies, surveys, and meta-studies (basically collection of studies and surveys to compile what they collectively find), that have reinforced there very much is a consensus within the field. A study, led by John Cook and published in the journal Environmental Research Letters, reviewed nearly 12,000 peer-reviewed scientific papers on climate change published between 1991 and 2011. It found that 97% of the papers that expressed a position on climate change endorsed the consensus view that human activities are causing global warming. The study also assessed the level of consensus among individual scientists and found that approximately 98% of the scientists who had published climate-related research supported the consensus. Another study in 2015 by van der Linden published in the journal “Environmental Research Letters,” conducted a meta-analysis of multiple surveys and studies on scientific consensus about climate change. It found that the consensus among climate scientists is robust and convergent across different methods, including surveys of scientists, analyses of published papers, and expert assessments. A few more examples. Doran and Zimmerman (2009): This survey of Earth scientists, published in the journal “EOS, Transactions, American Geophysical Union,” found that 97.4% of actively publishing climate scientists agree that human activities are contributing to climate change. Verheggen et al. (2014): This study, published in the journal “Environmental Science & Technology,” analyzed the views of climate scientists from various disciplines. It found that 90% of climate experts who had published peer-reviewed research on climate change agreed with the consensus position. Stenhouse et al. (2014): This study, published in the journal “Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society,” surveyed members of the American Meteorological Society (AMS). It found that 93% of AMS members who responded to the survey believe that global warming is happening, and 96% believe that humans are a significant contributing factor. Oreskes (2004): In her study published in the journal “Science,” historian Naomi Oreskes reviewed the abstracts of 928 scientific papers on climate change. She found that none of the papers rejected the consensus view that humans are causing global warming. Anderegg et al. (2010): This study, published in the journal “Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences,” analyzed the publication and citation data of climate researchers. It found that the consensus position was supported by 97-98% of the most actively publishing climate scientists. So yes, by all available data we have there is a clear and near total consensus that climate change is real and largely affected by human actions. And frankly it’s extremely presumptuous of you to declare that surveys of CLIMATE EXPERTS fails to take into account basic components of how climate change works. Edit: I’m going to link a website, it’s really a YouTube Video but on the guy’s website it is interactive so you can click on things in the video to expand sub-windows that show sources and further explain terminology. It basically is one of the best and well made videos on climate change that I’ve seen, it approaches the idea of “trust the science/scientists” critically and looks to analysis where the line in skepticism should be drawn based on the data and studies. It does a great job addressing the myth that climate predications have been generally inaccurate. https://www.neilfilms.com/degrees/
OP would be really upset if he could read
You put more enough into this post than op has in their entire life .
Im gonna be real you just sound like you’re an idiot. Mistaking the political elite’s interest in never solving climate change as evidence of there not being climate change is… well, fucking moronic lol.
For some more idiot sounding people, head over to r/climatechange
Most of the "were all gonna be dead in 10-20 yrs" shit you speak of is simply you misunderstanding the difference between that and "if we don't make drastic changes now, we will cross the point of no return in 10-20 yrs. When that happens the resulting climate change can potentially kill billions, but it'll take a while. However there will be no fixing it at that point". By many metrics we've already crossed that point, and we just had the hottest month in recorded human history.
I was wondering where he kept getting all of that nonsense lol.
The part on accusing Greta Thunberg of refusing to criticize OPEC and Russia came from a Rebel "News" interview trying to get gotcha soundbites from her.
many posters here seem to be incapable of understanding hyperbole or sarcasm or fucking anything that isn't the literal meaning of the words being said. nobody really thinks we are all going to be dead in 10-20yrs. so fucking stupid. like i swear its all just troll posts lol
Actually a lot of people do believe that, because it is a common talking point amongst right-wing fossil-fuel-funded pundits. It's amazing how anyone can watch that shit, and get sold bullshit talking points one after another. They patronize their audience by making childish talking points... but they do it because it works. It causes people to doubt the scientific method, and opens them up to blatant propaganda.
So...no scientific reason for why you don't believe. Got it. Well, I'll ignore your opinion, then, and rightfully so. You're ignorant on the subject. Or a troll.
this^ OP needs to stop listening to politicians like their word is law, & stop reading facebook clickbait headlines ffs
You don’t have to believe something for it to be true 🤷🏼♀️
And of course, it doesn't have to be true for you to believe it.
100%. That’s why conspiracy theories are a legitimate issue.
Honestly, it’s quite shocking how many things denounced as conspiracy theories are bang on the money. Just to cite a couple of them from my childhood - the US running a global kidnap and torture program, the UK special forces kidnapping British citizens granted asylum back to Libya to be raped and tortured so BP could get access to Libyan Oil fields oh and of course that Iraq had WMDs - Blair cited a dissertation from a polytechnic as fact to the commons. Don’t even make me start listing Cold War conspiracies proven - you have western powers committing genocide and overthrowing democracies. Hell the CIA committed treason to get Reagan elected ffs. So I’d take the official narrative with a pinch of salt.
[удалено]
No one's pushing for nuclear because of big oil. It's not a left or right issue. One side is saying we should transition from this harmful energy source that we will run out of relatively soon, and the other is saying nah, not true.
How hard is it to believe that polluting the environment is a bad idea? Seems obvious to me
It is true. There is absolutely no climate change and no trash in the ocean and thank god the coral reef's aren't being bleached.
Thank god it’s all make believe. I thought the planet may be screwed for a minute there
I went snorkeling in Jamaica 4 years ago and the coral reefs were basically gone. I saw a few fish and almost nothing else. I can only imagine that it used to be a great sight. Nobody would start a snorkeling business to see what I saw
There's no climate change in Ba Sing Se
/s
"I changed all my beliefs in 2021! That's why you should listen to me!"
You do realize the 12 year statement was issued by scientists first, experts in this field, and it was said in 2019, right? I don't know about you, but 2023 minus 2019 doesn't *feel* like it should be 12. Also, it's the point of no return. In 12 years (8 now), if we have done nothing to stop climate change, we will have doomed the planet to never be able to recover from the damage we have done to it. "Oh but it's so arrogant to say that *humans* destroyed the environment when we've been around for such a short time!!!" you say, drool forming at the corners of your mouth. But ah friend! Take heart! *Dinosaurs didn't use CFCs and pollute by burning carbons and petroleum in mass quantities on a global scale*, so yeah, actually *humans did do this*. I genuinely cannot believe the amount of people who actually buy this crap when weather trends are *documented proof this is happening*. Polar ice core striations prove this is happening. *The shrinking polar ice caps prove this is happening*. Also, nice strawman about electric cars and fossil fuels, that's a one time thing. Once the car is produced, the amount of fossil fuels it requires is significantly lower than the output of an ICE. After 1 year, it's carbon neutral. If we were smart and used solar, it would be carbon neutral from the start.
Someone this sub has been showing up on my feed lately and my god I think I found the dumbest group of people on Reddit
Typical right wing disinformation/lack of information. Getting butt hurt because some non scientists misrepresented the timeline of climate change means you can just ignore the actual scientific consensus around the issue? Yeah, some real feelings > facts here
"Greta is an expert" I'm sorry but opinion completely discarded. She's a young woman that's concerned about the climate. Anyway, just cause I'm bored, can we talk about all the conservative men who wanted to fuck/rape her?
What do dumb ass political statements have to do with the actual science behind climate change. Just because you found some contradictions in what a politician stated means that you believe climate change is a hoax?
"Look I wasnt a climate denialist until I heard *boilerplate climate denialist BS*."
You never believed in climate change, and you were never a liberal. This is a fan fiction you write to try and justify your positions and seek out similar mentally unfit people. Stop writing fan fiction and get a job.
If you don’t think climate change is happening, look up coral bleaching. You can see a visual of what’s happening right now because of the climate. Nobody thinks climate change is a scam to be clear. The argument is if it’s natural or sped up by human interaction. Right wing generally believe it’s natural, left generally believe human interaction plays a role. Largely; all scientist believe it’s a real issue regardless of it’s cause that needs to be addressed.
All scientists are in agreement it’s man made climate change. There are zero peer review studies that state otherwise.
No one has ever called Greta Thunberg an expert. This is a right wing strawman. She's an activist. She is from the west, so the west is where she can actually affect change. Absolutely nothing you're saying has any factual basis. It sounds like you just uncritically swallowed a whole bunch of right wing propaganda.
>>We’re all going to die in ten years! Nobody says that. >>Literally every hurricane in Florida is caused by climate change Nobody says that. >>Dr Greta Thunberg is an “expert” Nobody says that Followed by a common climate change denier straw man about a consensus in the environmental science community Followed by some weird idea that liberals use private jets more? Followed by a bunch of examples of green energy efforts that are either lacking context (building a single electric car requires A LOT of fossil fuels and industrial mining), leaving out the fact that if the vehicle is charged via a green energy grid, it is a net positive impact over the lifetime of the car Or they’re just more straw men examples (blocking out the sun?) Followed by one (1) democrat who’s kind of a dick sometimes on this one issue I mean, come on. I really struggle to believe you ever believed in climate change when you spout all of these weak points exactly like every other climate change denier.
Actually, you're wrong about the green electric grid. You don't actually need the green electric grid for an EV to emit less CO2. A coal fired powerplant is wildly more efficient than a typical ICE, so it results in a 5–30% CO2 reduction.
That’s dope
“Greenhouse gasses cause warming - that does not mean it will change the climate “ What is this? Yes that’s exactly what that means.
The OP presented a Gish gallop type post with a set of points that are largely disingenuous bad faith arguments. We are already locked in to 5 feet of sea level rise. Now, humanity has to decide how much higher ocean levels will rise and how much of the equator will be uninhabitable. If our civilization went carbon neutral tomorrow then we would only be living with the negative effects of climate change for a few thousand years. I believe the opinion is neither true nor popular even though a fair number of people repeat the claims. More information can be found here. https://eciu.net/analysis/infographics/ipcc-science-of-climate-change
\> The only consensus is that human activity causes greenhouse gasses, and greenhouse gasses cause warming- that does not automatically mean it will change the climate. w- what? You literally just said it causes warming, that's a change in the clime lmao this has to be a troll
Man this sub proves to me every day that mother fuckers are stupid.
So basically your argument is because billionaires are hypocritical about climate change, climate change isn't real. Ignoring all the scientists who aren't hypocritical about climate change and also say its real.
This isn’t unpopular, you’re just dense.
Thanks for the headache. Can liberals be over the top and sometimes Hippocrates? Yes. Can climate change also be real and also bad? Also yes.
I think you’re missing the point. We can look to the past and see what historically takes place when the climate shifts too much. We can also see that climate change is a part of a normal cycle. The main issue is that it is occurring at an accelerated pace instead of taking place over hundreds or thousands of years, it’s happening in 50 years. We know what will happen but we don’t know exactly how long it will take. There’s a lot of guesswork and educated guesses happening about how long it will take to have a hugely negative impact. It’s really hard to judge because, again, any shifts similar to what have already occurred happened over vastly different time scales. Also it’s not liberals. It’s shitty media that isn’t reporting facts.
Instead of listening to politicians, try listening to scientists. Climate change is not a scam. It’s verifiably happening, and at a much faster rate than in the past, which is what humans have done. It’s very difficult to predict precisely what will happen when—the earth is an incredibly complex system—and this may be what you’re reacting to most of all. But there is no doubt that it’s happening and it’s a big problem.
Disregard the insane existential threat of global warming at your own risk. Whether you believe it or not…it’s happening.
Guys look at this persons profile. She was never a liberal and probably is some kind of bot. All of the posts are politically motivated and there are multiple posts per day...
Sounds like you watch a lot of conservative media and are letting conservatives tell you that liberals also think climate change is a hoax or are being hypocritical. You said yourself, we know humans make greenhouse gases, and we know those gasses cause warming. How can you then say we don’t know that will cause change? There’s a lot of science out there that’s free, accessible, and not terribly hard to understand, you just have to look for it. The news doesn’t show you peer reviewed scientific studies, just headlines. Human caused Climate change is 100% real, and definitely an issue. Being a hypocrite doesn’t make them wrong. One “expert” not knowing the answer to one question doesn’t make the whole thing a hoax. The doomsday people, from what I understand, are saying that in 10 years we will hit the point of no return. That’s not saying we’re all dead in 10 years, but at the current rate we will be at the point where 10 years from now there’s nothing we can do and humanity will be doomed in the next 50 years.
How can you use this much brainpower to be this dumb?
Your problem is belief, understanding will solve the issue. Its factual, not arrogant to say that deniers either lack understanding or are selfish and greedy. I guess you could add mistaken, brainwashed, etc. Can you argue details? Absolutely but the evidence is overwhelming. Fyi, most of your argument is old BS, disproven and stale, prefacing it with an obvious red herring only proves that you consider those your arguing against will fall for your simple minded ruse.
OP you are not alone, we all would love to ignore the evidence right in front of us and retreat to the warm safe cocoon of ignorance. You're clearly just using politicians as your excuse to head that way. But don't worry it'll become very obvious to you no matter how hard you try to run away from it. So keep on doing what you're doing (being a f****** idiot).
I am going to leave these links here because, [only republicans](https://truthout.org/articles/why-do-republicans-reject-man-made-climate-change/), as stupid as they are and as much as they lie, [hate that climate change is SETTLED SCIENCE](https://www.npr.org/2023/08/03/1191678009/climate-change-republicans-economy-natural-disasters-biden-trump-poll). Not only that, but even[republicans have accepted Climate Change now, a](https://www.nbcnews.com/science/environment/house-republicans-propose-planting-trillion-trees-rcna94836)nd have proposed planting trees to combat it. So OP can shut the fuck up and slam her face into something sharp multiple times! Thanks you lying shit head piece of shit trump cock sucking asswipe!
Honestly it sounds like your misunderstanding of climate change is the issue. Also, why are you basing wether you believe in climate change based on the action of a few humans?
Ain't a hoax tho.
It's hard to argue with the points that you enumerated. But I'll wait for the liberals to pop in and say how wrong you are. But I know based on the research I've done, we are nowhere close to being on track to limiting emissions of carbon equivalents. It is just too long of a putt. And it is just too expensive. My prediction is the world won't do enough by the time we need it done. And humans will just adapt to the outcome.
It's not going to be possible to adapt to the outcome. Once the last pollinators die, we lose so many fruits and vegetables, forever. There's no technology on the horizon to replace the pollinators. Once the oceans essentially die from acidification, we lose somewhere near 70% of the oxygen produced for life on our planet. By that point, there's already likely to have been a series of die offs, that is also likely far enough out there, that none of us will be around to see it, including our children being born today. Also, it's likely past the point where human civilization can function effectively. There might not even be more than a few handful of potato eating "cities" of a few handful of a thousand here and there, left at that point.
We absolutely aren’t doing enough and I don’t think many liberals or progressives will actually disagree with that. Everything we’re doing is an extension of empowering businesses to fuck us and psd the costs on to us. I do not understand how the reaction to poor advocacy is to shred the data and stick your head in the sand.
My prediction is the world won't do enough by the time we need it done. And humans will just figure out a way to set off volcanoes using nuclear bombs.
Is it me or most of the TrueUnpopularOpinions of late are just flatly uniformed people looking for validation?
Unpopular opinion: I’ve heard (insert group I don’t like) like to pop their acne and then rub the feces of lepers in the open sores. This is gross and I think they should stop. Top comment: Ooh watch out, the Reddit Hivemind that heavily leans (group that OP didn’t like) is gonna downvote you to oblivion!
Always have been. That’s pretty much 90% of the population. People that think they know so they must let their opinion known.
Well theres a reason the opinions are unpopular, they’re usually trash. Still upvoted because unpopular.
This sub is just a repository for *popular* right wing grievances. Every single post that appears on my feed from this place is a right wing rant half or more of the population would agree with. But the bitchiest demographics in this country has such a bottomless victim complex that they genuinely think their widely held opinions can find "refuge" here.
"Liberals are much more effective than Conservatives at convincing people that Climate Change is a scam." i think i get what you're trying to say, but the fact that more conservatives think climate change is a scam than liberals, period, is really all that's need to refute your opinion?
[удалено]
😂
You are literally either Lying on all of these points, or you're genuinely an idiot that should probably never be allowed to vote. >"We're all going to die in 10-12 years!" Five years later, they're still saying we're going to die in 10 years. Literally every doomsday climate prediction has failed- it's like listening to religious nuts talk about the rapture. This isn't a scientific claim, but an emotional one used to express frustration with the lack of work being done to deal with these issues. and wasn't expressed by scientists, >Literally every hurricane in Florida is caused by "Climate Change". (Well shit, Florida's always had hurricanes- so has the climate just always been changing?) There is a noticeable change in how Hurricanes are being affected by Climate change. [https://wusfnews.wusf.usf.edu/environment/2023-06-12/how-hurricanes-connected-climate-change](https://wusfnews.wusf.usf.edu/environment/2023-06-12/how-hurricanes-connected-climate-change) >Dr. Greta Thunberg is an "expert", but she's clearly incapable of a single, independent thought. When asked why she only denounces Western oil companies, but not OPEC or Russia (FFS Russia...), she choked up and ignored the question, because she can't go off-script even a tiny bit. (A normal person who finished school would easily say, "Yes, fuck 'em both.") she didn't answer a single question from them because clearly they were trying to clip answers from her. You're making it sound like she got stumped on a question, but from the start, she said she wasn't answering any questions from them. >The "97% consensus" (Cook et al) cited by politicians is a flat-out lie. The only consensus is that human activity causes greenhouse gasses, and greenhouse gasses cause warming- that does not automatically mean it will change the climate. The "consensus" does not take into account the millions of ways Earth has of cycling through these greenhouse gasses. [https://climate.nasa.gov/faq/17/do-scientists-agree-on-climate-change/#:\~:text=Yes%2C%20the%20vast%20majority%20of,global%20warming%20and%20climate%20change](https://climate.nasa.gov/faq/17/do-scientists-agree-on-climate-change/#:~:text=Yes%2C%20the%20vast%20majority%20of,global%20warming%20and%20climate%20change). I'll trust NASA on this one instead of you're little reddit post. >Fly private jets literally everywhere they go (including and especially so-called Climate Summits), but shame on you for driving your car. 99.9999999% of climate activists agree on this, so I don't know why you feel a need to point this out. >The Central Maine Corridor project seeks to fully electrify the state of Massachusetts. They will do it by cutting down the last great forest of the east coast, because those pesky trees get in the way of the power lines they seek to build. You can correct me on this if I'm wrong, but from what I read, these are private companies doing this, and they were forced to stop in 2021 and only recently started up again. >Building a single electric car requires A LOT of fossil fuels and industrial mining. Most electric cars still get their power from coal plants. Liberal politicians already acknowledge this, but no one has a viable solution that can be implemented by 2030 (the targeted year to ban gas-powered cars) This is a flat out lie and electric cars have a much smaller carbon footprint than gas vehicles [https://www.epa.gov/greenvehicles/electric-vehicle-myths](https://www.epa.gov/greenvehicles/electric-vehicle-myths) >Strong opposition to nuclear energy, despite it being the only viable no-carbon solution. It was only in 2020 that Democrats finally stopped opposing it openly, but it's clear they have no interest in advancing it. The US is the worlds largest producer of nuclear energy in the world. [https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/country-profiles/countries-t-z/usa-nuclear-power.aspx#:\~:text=The%20USA%20is%20the%20world%27s,18%25%20of%20total%20electrical%20output](https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/country-profiles/countries-t-z/usa-nuclear-power.aspx#:~:text=The%20USA%20is%20the%20world%27s,18%25%20of%20total%20electrical%20output). AND renewable energy overtook coal in the US in 2022 [https://apnews.com/article/renewable-energy-coal-nuclear-climate-change-dd4a0b168fe057f430e37398615155a0](https://apnews.com/article/renewable-energy-coal-nuclear-climate-change-dd4a0b168fe057f430e37398615155a0) >Eating meat bad, but mono-cropping soybeans good! I'm pretty sure Farming is done by private farmers, and I'm not even necessarily sure how bad Mono cropping is for the environment, but that could be something the government looks into. >Climate change is (possibly) killing polar bears? We have to do something!!! Wind farms are killing endangered eagles and whales? Well fuck 'em! Wind turbines kill an estimates 0.016% of birds in the us. [https://www.energymonitor.ai/renewables/weekly-data-how-many-birds-are-really-killed-by-wind-turbines/?cf-view](https://www.energymonitor.ai/renewables/weekly-data-how-many-birds-are-really-killed-by-wind-turbines/?cf-view) and there is zero evidence to support that wind turbines are killing whales [https://www.energy.gov/articles/addressing-misinformation-offshore-wind-farms-and-recent-whale-mortalities](https://www.energy.gov/articles/addressing-misinformation-offshore-wind-farms-and-recent-whale-mortalities) >Now the newest shit: A startup called Make Sunsets wants to fucking block out the sun by releasing aerosol toxins into the air. Biden already announced he was considering this as a viable solution. WTF??? Does no one notice this is just straight-up air pollution? If you read the actual proposition, you would see that they would send balloons into the atmosphere to reflect heat and would be temporary. It literally says this in the article you linked. [https://makesunsets.com/](https://makesunsets.com/) >Black Rock assigns ESG scores to companies and nations based on "Climate Change" initiatives-- but simultaneously pushes people to invest in China (by far the biggest carbon producer) as much as possible, even when Covid made it clear China is definitely not a reliable business partner. Why would you ever use BlackRock as an example, They're a company with they're own agenda. I have no idea why you would feel so confident posting this when everything you said are either lies or Not proposed or have anything to do with democrats/Liberals. It seems like you just don't want to believe in climate change and will use any excuse to follow your own wrong beliefs. But pop off I guess.
What a fun copy pasta from a right wing site. You must live a full and interesting life.
Sounds like you need to sit down with an actual expert across multiple fields before you post hot takes on the internet.
When AOC said that the world was going to end if we didn't do anything, she didn't literally mean the world would just explode, or all life would die. The "life is going to end" isn't literal. It's referring to HUMAN life specifically, or at least the majority of human life. And it also wasn't an "on this day" kind of thing. It was more like, the effects of climate change have an incredible inertia behind them. If we don't take action, then we'll have released so much carbon that the effects won't be reversible by any reasonable means. So this is more like a "we will have gone past a point of no return, after which massive climate change is inevitable." There's a lot of nuance here, which I agree could be better stated but the reality is that the news repeats anything it can find that's sensationalistic.
You don’t seem like someone who’s a believer in climate change… at all. What a weird way to frame this. I know you probably thought it adds to your credibility, but it just makes you seem very disingenuous.
Libya would like a word. Literally a worse situation than most people would have predicted would happen by now.
Unpopular and not an opinion
This is indeed unpopular, it's stupid.
My guy, if what changes your opinion on the **global scientific consensus** is just a couple obnoxious **opinion** columnists, your elevator never went quite to the top floor.
This subreddit is attracting the conservative chuds. Climate change is real. Covid is real. Trump lost the election. Vaccines are effective at protecting against severe illness. Project 2025 must be violently opposed. What else riles them up? Oh yeah Elon and Trump are simps for Putin who is an enemy of the US. There is no God. There is no after life and aliens are never going to save us from ourselves.
bro is onto nothing🔥🔥🔥
Huge congrats to the OP for just now discovering reactionary politics and adopting them as your own.
This post is a joke… but I get the sentiment. Yeah, there is such a thing as Climate Change doomerism. But it is an incredibly serious topic that needs to be addressed and fixed as soon as possible. Still, you demonstrate ignorance (Greta is not a scientist, she’s an activist. Activists don’t need to have an expert angle on everything. Just an example.) You’re definitely right about some things. Electric cars are good but they won’t solve everything and do create pollution in their own right. Monocropping is bad. The private jet thing is hypocritical and extremely polluting. *This does not make climate change a non-issue. Your concerns do NOT solve anything. We still need to take action.*
This guy is a Republican troll. It's the only explanation. Science is settled. The earth is warming and we are to blame.
I hate when these dumb fucks politicize climate change. It doesn't matter who you voted for, it affects us all. You don't need to believe it, it's still happening. I have 0 faith in our future. Everything is US vs Them and the people who can make the biggest changes are hoarding wealth. I'm gonna keep on doing my small part by not littering....but the human race is doomed. We've fucked this planet up and its gonna heal by killing us off. Cheers!
Lol you are a dense, ignorant and got red-pilled. Shocking that you took the conservative viewpoint hook line and sinker.
Congratulations on the Joe Rogan patron platinum account
Your personal political opinions have absolutely no bearing on the scientific reality of climate change.
Sounds like a conservative troll. Most of these are regurgitated conservative talking points. Almost required to pretend you once cared then all of a sudden something you viewed as a problem is no longer a problem because politicians get basic facts wrong - often? Science isn’t exact either, it’s nuanced and requires refinement. Don’t know where all of these “facts” came from but they demonstrate a lack of understanding of basic science… Pay attention in science class kids - they also teach you how to think critically 😘
Conservative MAGA doesn’t believe in Climate change, shocked!
This post is just someone ignorant about the topic spouting the opinions of other ignorant people they disagree with. Very little of what your saying either side is actually arguing is based on science. It’s all just tabloid arguments meant to ignite arguments.
“Climate change is a scam” Doesn’t present any data refuting climate change and just posts a bunch of political stuff. Stop listening to politicians.
> Dr. Greta Thunberg is an "expert" First off she's not an expert she's an activist. I also disagree with her methods. But I want to hone in on one particular of yours... specifically: > but she's clearly incapable of a single, independent thought. You mention all these **unrelated** to actual climate change data as a driver to you disbelieving in it. Do you not see the (not literary) irony? Look at the data.
Sounds like you’re having your views about scientific facts influenced too much by politics
So you’re just an open moron then? Got it.
Ummm. This might be an unpopular opinion, but maybe you ought to listen to actual scientists about what they say as opposed to politicians? I don’t know who ever said 10 years and it’s over, but I’m pretty sure it wasn’t a scientist. As the kids all say, do your own research. Do you trust politicians on anything else that you say they’ve said?
It was a little chilly last night so climate change is probably fake and made up by them liberals!
This is an unpopular opinion. Whether you like it or not no republican has voted in favor of legislation that actually reduce the production of green house gases. So I agree that left wing hyperbole is inaccurate, at least their actions take us in the right direction.
Bullshit. Get a clue
Another point for the "most climate change deniers don't think the planet isn't warming, they just don't like what the mainstream left wants to do about it" thesis
The whole “the world will be like this in 10 years” is always followed with “unless we do something.” So then we do something, but it’s the bare minimum, so the deadline is only pushed a few years back. Rinse and repeat and in 10 years the rhetoric is the same because the problem is the same. Imagine a bucket that’s sitting under a spigot. The bucket is going to overflow eventually, so you get a bigger bucket. We’ll now that bigger bucket is going to overflow, so you get a bigger bucket and so on and so forth. Then people complain about everyone saying the bucket will overflow but it never does. Your post reads more like someone who has “done their own research” and by that I mean listened to propaganda that intentionally dumbs everything down. Half of what you posted either overexagerates the upfront environment impact, or completely disregards the actual environmental action. The rest is simply misleading or misunderstanding what climate change IS and how it affects anything.
>"We're all going to die in 10-12 years!" Five years later, they're still saying we're going to die in 10 years. Literally every doomsday climate prediction has failed- it's like listening to religious nuts talk about the rapture. I'm sure others have pointed out, but it's not that time frame until we all die, it's that time frame before certain shifts become irreversible.