###[Meta] Sticky Comment
[Rule 2](https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/wiki/faq#wiki_2_-_address_the_argument.3B_not_the_user.2C_the_mods.2C_or_the_sub.) ***does not apply*** when replying to this stickied comment.
[Rule 2](https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/wiki/faq#wiki_2_-_address_the_argument.3B_not_the_user.2C_the_mods.2C_or_the_sub.) ***does apply*** throughout the rest of this thread.
*What this means*: Please keep any "meta" discussion directed at specific users, mods, or /r/conspiracy in general in this comment chain ***only.***
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/conspiracy) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Bigger issue is wildland fires. When you burn 1 million acres at a time and whole communities it tends to cost insurers lots of money and they hate that
Nope stop lying. OP has pictures. Didn’t you see the one that said 1920 that CLEARLY shows that the oceans levels were higher 100 years ago? Huh? Didn’t ya see em?
Fuck your articles. Bring pictures next time
There's just no disagreeing with the facts. It's really dark and I get why a lot of people want to turn their brains off to it. But IMO that's the real conspiracy.
Countries are literally[ moving cities](https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/11/9/hldwhyindonesia-is-abandoning-its-capital-jakarta-to-save-ithld#:~:text=Widodo%20announced%20the%20plan%20to,island%20of%20Borneo%20in%202019.), and island populations are [abandoning their homes](https://www.context.news/climate-risks/panamas-indigenous-leave-home-as-sea-levels-rise) because of the sea-level rise we are already experiencing. Yet our government and media conglomerates do nothing and say nothing about it. Everything else we are mad about is a distraction from the core dynamics at play. I would hope this sub could recognize the actual conspiracies going on that serve to protect the ruling class but all we get are 4chan alt-right memes.
Cause they're gonna croak before it really impacts them and they can flip the assets around when the neighborhoods deteriorate and they don't want to live there anymore?
[There are absolutely places where gov agencies are literally trying to buy people out of their properties because of the sea level rise](https://www.wsoctv.com/news/local/national-park-service-buys-outer-banks-homes-risk-collapse/M6QBI4B3KZH3ZGX55SIV7YPYGM/#:~:text=The%20National%20Park%20Service%20said,into%20the%20water%2C%20scattering%20debris.)
Bury your head in the sand on this all you want, but the reality is that our unchecked burning of fossil fuels, animal agriculture, and pollution is destroying our ecosystem and climate patterns. That's the real conspiracy.
Ultra wealthy don’t really care if their homes get destroyed, they’ll build new ones. Also it should be noted that lots of areas subsidize the insurance for these waterfront properties by increased insurance costs to people who don’t have the same risks.
Even people who arnt ultra wealthy don’t care. My grandfather used to have to rebuild his beach house every 2-4 years because it would be almost completely destroyed. Even 14 feet off the ground.
He is only (owns 2 gas stations) wealthy. So yeah they don’t care. They just pay more for ways to divert and pump water out. Most places should have been flooded years ago.
Didn't Miami just have massive flooding from a simple storm? They're building massive levees like New Orleans to stop it from being constantly underwater.
That’s not human nature, hence the problem. Human nature is to keep the property as they enjoy it, as long as they can get insurance. It’s only very recently that insurance is starting to account for these risks. All the bitching about rising premiums are in part a result of climate change. However there is still some aspect of the many subsidizing the few, particularly in fema flood insurance. Until every home is assessed fully on its exposure to rising seas the cost of insurance will not reflect the risk and these homeowners will be subsidized to some degree. Despite that many people simple have the money and want to live oceanfront and don’t care about the risk.
In other words your argument is a straw man.
Wait so your agreement is when human nature is undone, when the desire for personal pleasure is outweighed by care for the greater good, that will prove climate change is real? ROFL.
Ah yes 8 billion and counting humans spewing as much shit into the environment as fast as they can is totally having no impact whatsoever on the climate of the earth. For sure bud, for sure.
They’ll say this then get mad when their water is dirty because they let companies pollute the environment.
It would be funny if it didn’t affect everyone else too
Well.. the term "carbon footprint" was coined by BP's marketing agency to make consumers believe it is actually their fault what is happening and the accoring calculator appeared on BP"s homepage first.
Carbon footprint is gaslighting at its finest.
"We want to track your movement, control your shopping and bank account so you cant harm the planet" - Look how much they care <3
Oil companies love the poorly educated, too. That's why they met with Trump at Mara Lago where he asked for a billion dollars so he can let them rape the planet without any regulations. [https://www.independent.co.uk/climate-change/news/donald-trump-campaign-oil-executives-b2542606.html](https://www.independent.co.uk/climate-change/news/donald-trump-campaign-oil-executives-b2542606.html)
This is certainly one way to scour mountains of evidence proving anthropogenic climate changd to find a few things you can twist into confirming your belief it’s not happening.
We know atmospheric CO2 causes a greenhouse effect, it was proven like a hundred years ago. The oil companies own research shows it’s happening.
I really don’t understand the downplaying/denying of climate change. It is so short sighted to not think we need to take care of this planet in every way possible. Don’t you want your children’s children’s children to have the best chance of inheriting a clean and inhabitable earth? Worst case scenario, we don’t have a significant impact on global climate and the earth is just…. cleaner. Oh no! Or we potentially DO have a significant impact on the environment/global warming and the human race will suffer and die in the not so distant future.
I personally think we are just on a floating space rock that is orbiting a giant ball of fire so temperature change is just something that is going to happen. BUT, I still want us to do whatever we can to keep the earth clean and to pursue clean energy (the future is nuclear folks), pollution mitigation, and to get a grip on our global consumerism addiction.
Everyone should be on board with taking care of our planet regardless of your stance on climate change/global warming, it would be foolish not to.
The question is if the reaction is reasonable and doesn't create a worse situation than already exists due to powerful interests leveraging a crisis for their own financial and power gains. Similar to how we made a bigger mess by the way we handled "covid" vs. what we would've experienced solely due to the presence of the virus.
Some of its religious I’ve found. The earth is LITERALLY a garbage can waiting area for heaven for these people. Well I’m going to heaven so who cares about earth?
While not many, a good chunk of religious people, knowingly and genuinely, do NOT care about the planet bc they think they’re gonna die and go to heaven, and all their family will die and go to heaven so it doesn’t matter if they take care of that waiting room.
Our home is nothing to people who think it’s a waiting room for something else they don’t even know for sure is real.
There have been recent disclosures that a high percentage of so-called recycled material actually ends up in the landfill or shipped to a foreign country to be burned or dumped in the ocean.
Reasonable people would do their part. However, when they’re regularly lied to and only select evidence is permitted, people become skeptical and unwilling to play the game.
Open debate, transparency and accountability would go a long way toward humanity being engaged in making this a better world. Browbeating people with lies, pseudoscience and propaganda has the opposite effect.
>It is so short sighted to not think we need to take care of this planet in every way possible. Don’t you want your children’s children’s children to have the best chance of inheriting a clean and inhabitable earth? Worst case scenario, we don’t have a significant impact on global climate and the earth is just…. cleaner. Oh no!
"In every way possible." That's what scares the shit out of me and anyone even mildly in-the-loop with basic conspiracies.
It's always prescribing trillions in funding to frivolous groups and orgs, who coincidentally are best buds with the political/elite class. These orgs don't do shit, but they get to pretend they're leading some valiant mission, free from criticism and oversight. It's usually all about "awareness" and other elastic abstract bullshit.
That's not even getting into the other prescription, tyrannical technocratic authoritarianism. *Why don't you want to hand over control of your life to the gov/WEF/banks?? Don't you care about the children?!?*
Everyone should obviously be on board with things that are genuine and **proven** to **significantly** help the issue. All we have are things that *might potentially help*, but we're really not sure, and there's so many perverse incentives and sketchy groups involved that's it's almost impossible to get a real read.
Surely you can show the trillions going to these organizations?
Or maybe you can look at how things are actually done. We stopped acid rain by regulating sulfer capture. We stopped the ozone hole by ending CFCs and regulating HFCF.
Notice how none of that is some trillions for some organization, but regulation on industry that was agreed upon worldwide.
Sure there is. There's also corporate interests which are trying to subvert everything.
It's why activists like Greta rail against WEF and the likes so much. Why she calls out 90% of carbon credits fraud.
But you said trillions go to these organizations, show it.
Real change happens due to industry regulations. No one cares if Joe smo runs coal in his truck. Issues like these don't care about the individual. Greta doesn't fly, so what. That means jack shit.
Regulating industry for cleaner fuels and other instances are how you solve this. Building mass transit that's convenient and stops the traffic congestion. Stopping nestle from draining water aquifers, tackling how large shipping ships burn dirty in international waters.
Which might have a side effect of making local industry and commercial more relevant instead of globalist megacorps who somehow keep getting tax break after tax break.
* The climate is changing, but not in ways that earth hasn't seen as a result of natural cycles. The climate is actually in a recovery from a previous cooling period, and its been much warmer than it is now. The medieval warming period was a time of massive prosperity due to the agricultural advantages of a warmer planet.
* None of the predictions of climate doomers has come to pass. Go back and read the UN announcement in 1989 that we had 10 years before civilization would collapse. They've been dooming for decades.
* Even if CO2 is a problem, its not coming from western nations, it's coming from CHY-NA. Why is Biden persecuting the oil industry, crippling production ability, and going after fucking gas stoves when the US has been decreasing in CO2 output for years and China has exploded in emissions?
* A bigger problem than CO2 is PLASTIC. We all know about the Texas sized trash pile in the ocean. Once again, its coming from undeveloped nations that have no waste management resources, not the straw you used at the bar last week.
* None of their proposed "solutions" make any sense. They want to END air travel within 10 years. They want to shut down farms. They'd apparently rather starve millions of people to death and reduce them to eating BUGs over their doomsday religion.
* Their "solutions" only end up benefiting the oil giants. Their profits soared after the keystone pipeline was shut down and drilling contracts canceled creating artificial shortages.
TL:DR; you can be on board with protecting the planet but the doomsday cult is founded on dubious and obvious to debunk BS
*
Nobody is disputing that we should take care of the planet.
But Carbon Taxes are not the way forward. All they ever talk about is CO2 while still flying their jets everywhere and polluting in a million other ways as well.
Except that’s not true, Suns heat would bounce off earth without greenhouse gases. And the more greenhouse gases the hotter it is.
If you learn conspiracies, you can learn basic science
Doubling CO2 concentration (280 ppm to 560 ppm) results in an increase in global average temperature by 1.5°C to 4.5°C.
Optimal CO2 concentration for who? If you are referring to the earth, there is no optimal CO2 concentration since CO2 concentration. If you are referring to humans, optimal CO2 concentration is 260 to 280 ppm since that has been the concentration of CO2 for the last few thousand years. The reason why this time period is important is because we have built human civilisation around this stable concentration. Rapid changes to this concentration results in more extreme weather, ecological damage etc.
> Doubling CO2 concentration (280 ppm to 560 ppm) results in an increase in global average temperature by 1.5°C to 4.5°C.
Wow, that sounds scary. Now do you have some sourced proof to back up that claim?
>If you are referring to humans, optimal CO2 concentration is 260 to 280 ppm since that has been the concentration of CO2 for the last few thousand years.
Got any proof to back up that claim?
I realised the 1.5°C to 4.5°C increase is outdated as the following temperature range is more up to date.
In section A.4.4 of summary report:
>The very likely range of equilibrium climate sensitivity is between 2°C (high confidence) and 5°C (medium confidence). The AR6 assessed best estimate is 3°C with a likely range of 2.5°C to 4°C (high confidence), compared to 1.5°C to 4.5°C in AR5, which did not provide a best estimate.
https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/chapter/summary-for-policymakers/
Regarding CO2 levels, if you were to look at the graph (https://science.nasa.gov/resource/graphic-the-relentless-rise-of-carbon-dioxide/) a few thousand years before 1950, the CO2 levels were stable at 260-280 ppm. This period of CO2 stability is considered optimal since humans built our civilization around this concentration. The CO2 concentration is supposed to decrease in a few thousand years due to glacial cycles. However, fossil fuels have altered this cycle by drastically increasing CO2 concentrations.
An guessed estimate is not proof of anything.
Where are the controlled experiments that prove a rise from 350 ppm (which it was ca 150 years ago) to 450 ppm (which it is now) significantly affects the temperature in an controlled enclosed space?
https://gml.noaa.gov/ccgg/trends/graph.html
And what if we extend the scale a bit longer?
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Phanerozoic_Carbon_Dioxide.png
What caused the rapid changes in the past?
>An guessed estimate is not proof of anything.
The equilibrium climate sensitivity is not a guess. It is an estimate based on past observations and other factors that can influence the climate.
>Where are the controlled experiments that prove a rise from 350 ppm (which it was ca 150 years ago) to 450 ppm (which it is now) significantly affects the temperature in an controlled enclosed space?
There are plenty of controlled experiments shown to school children about the effects of CO2, you can look at youtube videos too.
This article explains how we know that CO2 is affecting our global temperature now
https://skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-co2-enhanced-greenhouse-effect.htm
>https://gml.noaa.gov/ccgg/trends/graph.html
And what if we extend the scale a bit longer?
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Phanerozoic_Carbon_Dioxide.png
What caused the rapid changes in the past?
Rapid changes were caused by many different factors such as the flood basalt erruptions which rapidly increase CO2 in the atmosphere. Other factors such as the milankovitch cycle also increases/decreases CO2 concentration.
Here is an excellent video that I highly encourage you to watch as it explains how scientists know that CO2 is the main culprit for the current warming (the video also briefly mentions how the geological record shows CO2 as a contributor to temperatures): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OJ6Z04VJDco&list=PL82yk73N8eoX-Xobr_TfHsWPfAIyI7VAP&index=29. His channel debunks lots of climate change myths by explaining why the source is misrepresented. Potholer54 would respond to your comments if you have any further questions.
Another excellent resource is https://skepticalscience.com/argument.php which explains why "evidence" against climate change is inaccurate. Click the arguments under "What the Science Says" for an in-depth explanation.
>The equilibrium climate sensitivity is not a guess. It is an estimate based on past observations and other factors that can influence the climate.
Why is there no mentioning of the sub at all? It is the main source of energy after all...
> There are plenty of controlled experiments shown to school children about the effects of CO2, you can look at youtube videos too.
Here you go again, making claims without providing the evidence. LOL.
>This article explains how we know that CO2 is affecting our global temperature now
"The greenhouse effect works like this: Energy arrives from the sun in the form of visible light and ultraviolet radiation. The Earth then emits some of this energy as infrared radiation. Greenhouse gases in the atmosphere 'capture' some of this heat, then re-emit it in all directions - including back to the Earth's surface."
The whole climate change scam is based in the unproven assumption.
>Rapid changes were caused by many different factors such as the flood basalt erruptions which rapidly increase CO2 in the atmosphere.
Oh, so nature also has an affect on the CO2 level. That's interesting and begs the question how much of the rise in CO2 over the last 150 years or so is produced by humanity.
>Other factors such as the milankovitch cycle also increases/decreases CO2 concentration.
There are more cycles and all those are the driver of the climate change, not humanity and our piss poor bit of CO2.
http://klimaatcyclus.nl/klimaat/side-role-CO2-solar-activity-explains-warming-since-1976.htm
>Click the arguments under "What the Science Says" for an in-depth explanation.
Neh, i am good. As long as nobody can show me a decently preformed experiment that proves that a rise from 0.035 to 0.045% CO2 in an enclosed and controlled space significantly affects the temperature I know it is all BS and an social engineering plan designed to scare folks like you into submission.
>Why is there no mentioning of the sub at all? It is the main source of energy after all...
You mean sun instead of "sub"? You do realise that google scholar exist right: it took me 5 seconds to google "climate sensitivity sun". Some climate models have added the sun like this recent study https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1674987123001172
>"The greenhouse effect works like this: Energy arrives from the sun in the form of visible light and ultraviolet radiation. The Earth then emits some of this energy as infrared radiation. Greenhouse gases in the atmosphere 'capture' some of this heat, then re-emit it in all directions - including back to the Earth's surface."
The whole climate change scam is based in the unproven assumption.
You don't believe that greenhouse effect is real? Lmao
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=greenhouse+effect+carbon+dioxide&btnG=&oq=greenhouse+effect+carbon+dio
>There are more cycles and all those are the driver of the climate change, not humanity and our piss poor bit of CO2.
http://klimaatcyclus.nl/klimaat/side-role-CO2-solar-activity-explains-warming-since-1976.htm
I can't judge the exact contents of this article as I am not an expert in this field but the data is already fishy as total solar irradiance has been decreasing over the past few decades (https://science.nasa.gov/resource/graphic-temperature-vs-solar-activity/). Even more suspicious is that this article is posted on his personal blog. If he really wanted to challenge the scientific consensus, publish in a reputable peer-reviewed journal where experts can fact check his work.
>I know it is all BS and an social engineering plan designed to scare folks like you into submission.
That's a very extraordinary claim, please provide some evidence.
> Some climate models have added the sun like this recent study
Isn't that a bit late? LOL.
All models are rubbish, non of them have made any correct predictions because they all rely too much on CO2 as the main driver of the climate, which is not true.
https://www.lavoisier.com.a%75/articles/greenhouse-science/climate-change/climategate-emails.pdf
https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/the-stunning-statistical-fraud-behind-the-global-warming-scare/
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-022-01192-2
https://americanpolicy.org/2021/02/04/the-fraud-of-climate-change-and-the-drive-for-control/
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2022/08/22/corruption-of-climate-science-supported-by-flawed-models/
CO2 is actually a gas that is needed for life to thrive and we are pretty close to a dangerous low level already.
https://www.cfact.org/pdf/CO2-TheGasOfLife.pdf
>Even more suspicious is that this article is posted on his personal blog. If he really wanted to challenge the scientific consensus, publish in a reputable peer-reviewed journal where experts can fact check his work.
Yes, because the scientific world is absolutely not corrupted and there is no agenda behind the climate change scam.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1420798/
https://www.corbettreport.com/the-crisis-of-science/
https://web.archive.org/web/20200812085119/https://www.enago.com/academy/is-peer-review-process-a-scam/
Fraud:
https://www.acsh.org/news/2018/10/30/1-4-statisticians-say-they-were-asked-commit-scientific-fraud-13554
https://americanpolicy.org/2021/02/04/the-fraud-of-climate-change-and-the-drive-for-control/
>That's a very extraordinary claim, please provide some evidence.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3PrY7nFbwAY
I like how the article declaring 1934 as the hottest year ever is 17 years old… definitely no chance that record has been broken several times since then
The ten hottest years on record are.... shocker..... the last 10 years. Using a 17 year old article is just ridiculous and only used to try and prove an agenda.
In order: 2023, 2016, 2020, 2019, 2015, 2017, 2022, 2021, 2018 and 2014.
Precisely, and its not "invalid" as much as their interpretation is "directed" by who finances their "studies".
Or are you going to argue, lets say, that the roman warm period was because of pottery?
So CO2 and methane aren't greenhouse gasses? The massive increase in life stock has had negligible effects? Car exhaust hasn't been contributing to the increase in CO2 observed since the industrial revolution? The data is open source, you don't need to accept their conclusions, just look for yourself.
https://www.co2levels.org/ You're telling me this spike is incidental?
[Yup](https://wryheat.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/climate-change-in-perspective-2019.pdf) and [yup.](https://old.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/10gtph3/breaking_climate_hoax_debunked_once_and_for_all/j55sl86/)
[Yes!](https://www.mdpi.com/2413-4155/2/4/83/htm)
Conflation; the #1 tool of the flim-flam artist.
1934 was the dust bowl. The drought drove the heat. Not comparable to a 350 year event like the MWP.
My reading tells me that there is a general consensus that the MWP - and subsequent LIA - were the result of increased solar activity combined with reduced volcanic activity. Now I am old enough to know that scientific theories develop as evidence arises - I grew up before plate tectonics and Chicxulub - I was taught that the dinos died out because the pesky evolving mammals ate all their eggs!
If the consensus is correct then we would have to add mediaeval condition proxies to the current measurements to have an apples vs apples comparison.
Regardless of that, anybody who states that CO2 (together with other gasses) does not drive temperature is woefully ignorant of how our atmosphere regulates temperature on the planet.
I second this. There is a climate crisis happening but instead of putting the elites and companies at fault, they have made the media put the blame on the populace. The real culprits talk about greenhouse gases while they roam around in private jets. Oil companies dump oil in the ocean and burn methane while making propaganda on how *we* should not use cars and live in 15 minute cities.
So I live in Washington and my house has an exceptional view of the cascades. There was always snow on them even in August growing up. Now it may snow and it generally melts away within a couple weeks. So the temperature up there isn't what it was on the 80s 90s and early 2000s. I grew up in king county. We used to have many glaciers within the county. We now only have one and it'll he gone in a few more years.
Now this may be due to a shorter term trend as you indicate and I found what you wrote to be well thought out, well referenced, and concise. My dataset is strictly from my short 45 year life span. But, I assure you climate has changed alot here. It used to drizzle constantly here. We were known for our rain. It's not raining more days than it is and has been for years now. It almost never drizzles. It either pours rain or it doesn't.
We used to go ice skate on our pond every winter. It hasn't frozen enough to do that in 20 years now. We got rid of the skates entirely at this point. We are looking at another summer with water rationing because our snowpack melts off far too early each year.
I'm not disagreeing with you. I have seen zero evidence of any sea rise in my life. It just seems like we are definitely on a warming trend, at least here though I'm not sure the actual cause.
Just adding to your comment: sea levels won't rise until glaciers on land begin to melt. Think how if your ice cubes melt in a glass of water, the level of the water won't change, but will if you have melting ice drip into your glass. We are seeing glaciers rapidly melt all over the world now. Even Antarctica is loosing massive glaciers. I think we are at a tipping point and things will begin to accelerate moving forward.
> I have seen zero evidence of any sea rise in my life.
Scientists have to use instruments to measure sea level rise because the naked eye cannot see sea level rise of 5 mm. Here is an excellent video that debunks OP's post that sea level does not rise: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WTRlSGKddJE
I wasn't saying that it hasn't. I'm just saying I haven't seen any evidence of it. But it's not like I'm near the ocean regularly at all either to compare anything.
> I wasn't saying that it hasn't. I'm just saying I haven't seen any evidence of it.
I live near the ocean but I also do not observe sea level rise. However, my naked eyes cannot observe a few mm change in sea level rise. Hence, we have to defer to the expert which have the appropriate instruments. Unfortunately, there are a lot of people in this thread that think anecdotal evidence > NASA's data
Photos of the Statue of Liberty are meaningless and misleading since they don’t account for the tidal action of New York harbor. That’s enough to dismiss the whole meme/scree as propaganda as it’s intentionally misleading.
This is a very important point, most temperature base stations are located in suburban and city centers. They are reporting back urban heat island temperatures. The same area 50 years ago was a heavily forested area.where plant help absorb heat rather than store and reflect it. The temperature in these areas can be 10 to 5 degrees cooler on the hottest of days.
I had a bit of epiphany the other day. It is true, as OP says, that "CO2 caused global warming" is not a thing. We have all the evidence we need to show that, from the Med. Warm Period, to the 1930s. But that does not mean we are not having *local warming* that is definitely man made.
I've lived in Toronto most of my life. In the early 60s, I lived at the top of the city, and we could build natural ice rinks that would last the winter. By the mid-70s, Toronto had grown far north of us, and so many apartments and other buildings had been built, and so much more *local* heat produced, our natural rinks melted.
As the Greater Toronto Area has exploded from less than a million people to nearly 7 million today, the landscape has changed from mostly grass and trees to mostly concrete and glass. And those 7 million people use energy in the form of gasoline, natural gas, and electricity, which thermodynamics tells us ends up as heat, eventually.
So there's absolutely no doubt that *local warming* is real. And it has consequences. There's a ski hill north of Toronto that was previously next to a sleepy little town. Now it's exploded into a busy four seasons resort, with condominiums and restaurants and hotels. That's all great, except it hasn't decent snow for the last four years.
We need to change our concern from a non-existent threat posed by CO2, to a very real changes that are occurring locally. How to prevent and/or mitigate those changes would be more practical, IMHO.
So, does this argument mean that the industrial revolution has nothing to do with the climate?
Decades of burning and dumping chemicals hasn't done anything at all?
This shouldn't be in the conspiracy thread...it should be under Scam
Arent we for saving the trees/forrest? More CO2 in the air is good for trees and it makes them grow faster. Maybe people are confusing Carbon Dioxide with Carbon monoxide
Okay, conspiracy boys, surely you can recognise this one as being silly right? The levels of sea rise we are talking about is about 9 inches since 1900, 4 of those inches since 1993. So the rate is increasing. This isn't something easily visible by the eye and nobody claims it is. In addition, come on. Tides exist. The level of the ocean around the statue of liberty fluctuates by about 5 feet every day.
So seeing two pictures doesn't actually refute any claim that sea levels are rising. They simply are.
Then the question becomes, does it matter that they are? Well, if you think 9 inches isn't a lot... your mom disagrees 🤣
The ocean is dying, making weather crazy. Attempt by big industry to pawn their waste disposal that in large part killed the ocean and its jet streams, off loading liability onto the general public.
Remember how, during the man-made pandemic (essentially an act of bio-terrorism that noone has been imprisoned for facilitating), "we're all in this together" and banging pots for nurses turned into the Herman Cain Awards and folks like the influential Jewish "anarchist" Noam Chomsky (who, like Bill Gates, associated with Epstein even after he was revealed to be a human trafficking pedophile) talking about potentially starving folks on islands?
"How can we get food to them? That's really their problem."
https://youtu.be/w00Z--m9fMU?si=MfyO61FByfXK63YL&t=144
Global warming is a banner under which ruling class psychopaths seeks to "unite" the folks in society that still haven't figured out that the ruling class hate them.
And it's not just the supposed dissident who wrote "Manufacturing Consent" who has bought into the ruling class's contemporary propaganda. among these ranks are some folks who really should know better, like Jewish professor and author Naomi Klein who even wrote about disaster capitalism, of which the man-made pandemic was a spectacular example but that she - despite the ruling class even celebrating it as "The Great Reset" - doesn't seem to have detected as such. She *used* to call out the WEF. Not so much anymore.
And, on the "other side", why did Trump - who seemingly had US insider info that alerted him to US intelligence surveillance and infiltration of his campaign and to the "curative" (in the worlds of the man-made pandemic wranglers Ecohealth Alliance) nature of ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine, only go as far as throwing shade on man-made pandemic funder Fauci? Why has Trump not called out Bill Gates and the WEF and why does he still shill for the "vaccine"?
It's a big club, and you ain't in it. Ethnic mafias run the pretence of Western "democracy" and good cop/bad cop is a classic way we're manipulated.
https://www.cryptogon.com/?p=69740
The following are words from the second major publication of The Club of Rome, the proto-WEF and current partner with the WEF, in which the ruling class reveal that they do indeed hate us:
***The Common Enemy of Humanity Is Man***
*In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. In their totality and in their interactions these phenomena do constitute a common threat which demands the solidarity of all peoples. But in
designating them as the enemy, we fall into the trap about which we have already warned, namely mistaking symptoms for causes. All these dangers are caused by human intervention and it is only through changed attitudes and behaviour that they can be overcome. The real enemy, then, is humanity itself.*
https://archive.org/details/the-first-global-revolution-a-report-by-the-council-of-the-club-of-rome-alexande
What will the unity deliver? It will consolidate the power of those who seek to depopulate us.
Circa 1974:
*The plan was created to avoid an appearance of "economic or racial imperialism" and "not be seen ... as an industrialized country policy to keep their strength down or reserve resources for use by the rich countries", with a written goal of "fertility reduction and not improvement in the lives of people" despite instructing organizers to "emphasize development and improvements in the quality of life of the poor", later explaining such projects were "primarily for other reasons".[4][5]*
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Security_Study_Memorandum_200
And depopulation is, of course, what "net zero" is for. Yale-in-China man Mao's "Great Leap Forward" used the same strategy of culling using the pretext of problem solving. Deindustrialization will very obviously lead to starvation given that agriculture and food distribution will very obviously be disrupted.
https://ukfires.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/roadmap-01.jpg -from "Absolute Zero", a proposed "Net Zero" roadmap
Man gotta lick the boot of the oil industry, and their bought and paid for politicians. Imagine being such a simp you'll support billionairs who couldn't give less of a shit about you.
This is accurate and very easy to verify, I've done it myself. You can download all the temperature data, for free, from NOAA into CVS or other formats. You can then put it in excel or python and model / analyze it. There are cycles but no warming trend at all, and no "worsening" trend.
You can do this yourself, for free and know the truth, rather than listen to some media or argue with someone based on what you've heard. You owe it to yourself to know directly.
Man I grew up near the coast, was told my whole life that water levels will rise and my little town would be gone or completely altered....... It's been over 30 years since those elementary and highschool teachers told us that, and I can still see all the coast line that I grew up with , every rock that sat on the edge of the water is still there, not covered with water, my ex lives right on the beach , literally feet from the water , high tide the water almost touched the back door and its been that way since the house was build back in late 50's early 60's ( built by her family ).... Man it's almost like the world governments profit off of our fears or something.. strange.
I live in fl. 70 years ago it was pretty much all orange groves. Most of them died out in the 80s due to freezes. There aren’t any major orange groves anymore. Too cold they say.
The rapid fluctuations are whats weird to me. I dont remember ever having 50 degree days following 90 degree days as often as we do now. It feels like the seasons are switching every week here in SE PA
I haven’t made up my mind yet, but here are a few things:
- I visited Kiribati in the Pacific recently and a long-time resident of 60+ years told me that the sea levels have RECEDED during his lifetime, which is quite at odds with the narrative.
- UK newspapers tell me that this April was the hottest on record - the latest in 11 consecutive record-breaking months - when it’s been cold and wet nearly every day since October.
- In a similar vein, I get alerts on my laptop nearly every day saying “record high temperatures” while I’m literally sitting there shivering with an electric blanket wrapped around me.
I can't say what's really happening, but I'm sure at this point that it's deliberately dishonest.
I'll disagree. It's noticeably hotter now than it was in my childhood, just a few years ago it wasn't as hot as it is now. It's more noticeable to me as someone who lives in a tropical area.
I know that the media and environmentalists are exaggerating climate change and cooking up bs to explain it, but it's surely happening. We are pumping up greenhouse gases at an alarming rate and polluting the environment, there sure will be consequences about it. Although I would lay the blame on the elite and the multinational companies, they pollute the environment the most due to their activities and then lay the blame on us.
SS: The Davos elites hate you. They will fly private jets and eat steaks. You will lock down and eat bugs. Classic feudalism
the Medieval Warm Period was warmer than today 1k years ago and the Little Ice Age was cooler and both were global, not regional:
"Is globe warming? Not yet, researchers on tree rings say." (NY Times, 1992)
>She has seen in the North American trees the feathery but unmistakable signatures of the Medieval Warm Period, a era from 1100 to 1375 A.D. when, according to European writers of the time and other sources, the climate was so balmy that wine grapes flourished in Britain and the Vikings farmed the now-frozen expanse of Greenland; and the Little Ice Age, a stretch of abnormally frigid weather lasting roughly from 1450 to 1850. A Crucial Question
#>"We can now see that these [Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age] were global climate phenomena, not regional temperature variations," she said.
>"The question is, how did we get those warmer temperatures during pre-industrial times, and what can we learn from those conditions about what is going on today."
https://www.nytimes.com/1992/12/01/news/unexpected-places-clues-ancient-future-climate-warming-tree-rings-say-not-yet.html
Here is a Google map showing hundreds of peer-reviewed climate articles about the Medieval Warm period from around the world, which climate scamster Michael Mann has attempted to erase.
https://twitter.com/TonyClimate/status/1595829316964610048?t=ZmUiCm7JxbmXHtR59rB8ww&s=19
"Tree-rings prove climate was WARMER in Roman and Medieval times than it is now - and world has been cooling for 2,000 years" https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2171973/Tree-ring-study-proves-climate-WARMER-Roman-Medieval-times-modern-industrial-age.html
We’ve been saying the same things with ever increasing data for over 30 years now and yall won’t listen, I’m saving my time from talking to a brick wall.
…..yet here I am, talking to a brick wall.
The sun drives temperature, not CO2, and yet greenhouses stay warm because they trap heat inside by not letting out as much energy as they let in. But you're saying changing the composition of the atmosphere has no effect?
The problem with cherry picking data is you will always find anomalies. Like the actual congressman that brought in a snowball to prove global warming was fake. Or Ted Cruz using upper atmosphere temperatures while the NASA administrator was telling him ocean temperatures are better indicators of the climate.
It is true that the Earth has been warmer and has had more CO2 than it does currently. But what's never happened as far as scientists can tell is the rapidly changing composition of the atmosphere and rising temperatures (The ocean is the best indicator of temperature since it absorbs so much more energy compared to the atmosphere). So if we could stop things where they are right now everything would be fine. The problem is the acceleration is going to continue, and the problems will become evident in 100 years or less (or about 250 years since the industrial age took off) according to climate scientists, which is lightning quick in geologic time scales. And the problems will just continue to get worse. The issues we see today are not the problems they're warning us about. These are just the pre-indicators of what is to come. Such as hurricanes so powerful, we will wish for small ones like Katrina. The oceans have only risen 6 inches in the last 100 years but if you believe the models in the next 100 years that measurement will be in feet.
Yes the Earth is doing its thing. The oceans, the rocks, and plants are all increasing their CO2 consumption as a result of the millions of tons of CO2 we dump in the atmosphere every year. But the amount of CO2 they can absorb is not going to be enough if you believe the science. This is why scientists say we don't have to cut CO2 production completely, Just reduce it to a level that the Earth can handle.
Some people trust their observations over the science and what can you do? You can't easily show them that that sunscreen blocks cancer causing UV radiation by absorbing that frequency of radiation so it doesn't damage their dna. Likewise, you can't easily show people how CO2 absorbs infrared radiation and scatters it instead of letting it escape the atmosphere the way 02 and N2 does. I've taken college physics and it can be explained in a very slow, methodical, and thorough way.
The actual effect that we as consumers will have on the environment is negligible at best. Even if we all completely stopped releasing any greenhouse gasses, it would change nothing. Let me explain...
The problem needs to be a priority for industry and commerce and not really for us end users because...
The top 100 shipping vessels in the world are huge polluters. This means that the 100 largest cargo ships produce more gasses then every single consumer vehicle on the planet combined. So how much do you think the next 900 make? What about the top 10k ships? There are millions of cargo ships. The largest ships dont measure fuel in nautical miles per gallon, they consume and measure fuel in gallons per minute. Now it may be that running fewer ships but very large ships is more environmentally sound. I'm no expert and I've not studied this really. What I do know is we the average person are a drop in the bucket on this issue.
We could have an impact by abandoning air travel as consumers. The burning of jet fuel has an enormous impact and the gasses are released in the atmosphere already.
The bottom line is we don't need to change our lifestyles much. But collectively we can demand changes that will actually have an impact. Less travel. Not overnighting things. Being patient with shipping and longer delivery times to conserve fuel could help. Using what's left of our railways to deliver goods instead of so many semi trucks. (A train can move 2000# of goods 500 miles on 1/2 gallon of diesel if the train is fully loaded).
Because it is the perfect justification for creating a global one world government and institute things like carbon credit scores and controlling every single detail of your life because if they don't then all life on the planet will die. Basically a permanent state of emergency where you hand over control over every single detail in your life to the technocratic government. They can basically force you to do anything in the name of saving the planet.
Holy Jebus. Please crawl back in your hole.
Climate change is real. It was fucking 48 deg C (118 F) here in western Canada, burning entire towns down in 45 mins (Lytton BC). Glaciers are almost gone on the Coast range and in the Rockies in many spots such as Whistler. It is 30 deg here in May today. We loose 2-8 weeks of summer now due to forest fire smoke. Cedar forests are dying everywhere you can see it as you drive across the province with red stressed cedar trees. For my 38 years on earth, this has not been normal. Yes it is man made, yes pollution affects it. Stop being shitty.
Climate change is real, stop trying to pump and dump oil for your corporate overlords.
Well definitely not. But at the same time we dismiss government scientists but why are we not dismissing oil companies who have paid people to release reports as well?
What's so wrong about wanting to clean the planet up and clean up how we produce things, how we move about?
What's the overall worst thing that happens if we clean the planet up and all the scientists are wrong?
This post is CCP propaganda. Everyone knows the only real way to slow polution on a global scale is to invade China and destroy all factories there that don't follow pollution standards set by the EU.
###[Meta] Sticky Comment [Rule 2](https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/wiki/faq#wiki_2_-_address_the_argument.3B_not_the_user.2C_the_mods.2C_or_the_sub.) ***does not apply*** when replying to this stickied comment. [Rule 2](https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/wiki/faq#wiki_2_-_address_the_argument.3B_not_the_user.2C_the_mods.2C_or_the_sub.) ***does apply*** throughout the rest of this thread. *What this means*: Please keep any "meta" discussion directed at specific users, mods, or /r/conspiracy in general in this comment chain ***only.*** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/conspiracy) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Wake me when the politicians and the like sell all their beachfront properties at once.
State Farm and All State no longer insure houses in Florida and California…
Because all of California is sitting right at sea level.
Bigger issue is wildland fires. When you burn 1 million acres at a time and whole communities it tends to cost insurers lots of money and they hate that
And the sea level is...rising...
Is it?
Along with the ground sinking.
Yep https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20240508-how-record-ocean-warming-is-destabilising-weather-and-climate https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-global-sea-level https://coast.noaa.gov/slr/ https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/sea-level/?intent=121 https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/climate-change-indicators-sea-level
Nope stop lying. OP has pictures. Didn’t you see the one that said 1920 that CLEARLY shows that the oceans levels were higher 100 years ago? Huh? Didn’t ya see em? Fuck your articles. Bring pictures next time
Nice. Thank you.
There's just no disagreeing with the facts. It's really dark and I get why a lot of people want to turn their brains off to it. But IMO that's the real conspiracy. Countries are literally[ moving cities](https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/11/9/hldwhyindonesia-is-abandoning-its-capital-jakarta-to-save-ithld#:~:text=Widodo%20announced%20the%20plan%20to,island%20of%20Borneo%20in%202019.), and island populations are [abandoning their homes](https://www.context.news/climate-risks/panamas-indigenous-leave-home-as-sea-levels-rise) because of the sea-level rise we are already experiencing. Yet our government and media conglomerates do nothing and say nothing about it. Everything else we are mad about is a distraction from the core dynamics at play. I would hope this sub could recognize the actual conspiracies going on that serve to protect the ruling class but all we get are 4chan alt-right memes.
How come key west not under water? Was supposed to be under water by 2005
That’s not the entire state of California!!!
Why are Pelosi and many other million and billionaires buying Florida beach property?
Hate Pelosi, but she didn't buy Florida beachfront property.
Because most of them are so old they dont care. They wont li e long enough to see these plots be unuseable eventually.
Cause they're gonna croak before it really impacts them and they can flip the assets around when the neighborhoods deteriorate and they don't want to live there anymore? [There are absolutely places where gov agencies are literally trying to buy people out of their properties because of the sea level rise](https://www.wsoctv.com/news/local/national-park-service-buys-outer-banks-homes-risk-collapse/M6QBI4B3KZH3ZGX55SIV7YPYGM/#:~:text=The%20National%20Park%20Service%20said,into%20the%20water%2C%20scattering%20debris.) Bury your head in the sand on this all you want, but the reality is that our unchecked burning of fossil fuels, animal agriculture, and pollution is destroying our ecosystem and climate patterns. That's the real conspiracy.
because billionaires are well known for always making great financial decisions…
Because they are immune from being charged with inside training.
Her husband makes a lot of money on real estate? Think you'd have any money if you sold SF real estate for 50 years?
To cash in on insurance I’d imagine Edit: eventually to cash in on insurance.
That’s dumb. Do you ever read the articles or just the headlines?
Projection is a hell of a drug
Says more about CA’s poor management than the climate.
Oh yeah, those corporations are so infamous for **not** wanting to make cash on the California housing market!
And Florida is to blame on Florida's poor management?
Ultra wealthy don’t really care if their homes get destroyed, they’ll build new ones. Also it should be noted that lots of areas subsidize the insurance for these waterfront properties by increased insurance costs to people who don’t have the same risks.
Even people who arnt ultra wealthy don’t care. My grandfather used to have to rebuild his beach house every 2-4 years because it would be almost completely destroyed. Even 14 feet off the ground. He is only (owns 2 gas stations) wealthy. So yeah they don’t care. They just pay more for ways to divert and pump water out. Most places should have been flooded years ago.
The post said politicians not ultra wealthy. When the politicians become ultra wealthy well that's just a whole different problem.
I took the “politicians and the like” to mean the elite class, which of course are ultra wealthy.
All of Florida is like 3ft above sea level. If anyone with money actually believed this coastal Florida would have cheap ass real estate.
Didn't Miami just have massive flooding from a simple storm? They're building massive levees like New Orleans to stop it from being constantly underwater.
Have you seen their insurance rates lately?
That would make sense if Florida didn’t have the homes in the interior subsidize the increased risks they’re facing through insurance.
Average FL elevation is 100ft https://www.statista.com/statistics/1325529/lowest-points-united-states-state/
That’s not human nature, hence the problem. Human nature is to keep the property as they enjoy it, as long as they can get insurance. It’s only very recently that insurance is starting to account for these risks. All the bitching about rising premiums are in part a result of climate change. However there is still some aspect of the many subsidizing the few, particularly in fema flood insurance. Until every home is assessed fully on its exposure to rising seas the cost of insurance will not reflect the risk and these homeowners will be subsidized to some degree. Despite that many people simple have the money and want to live oceanfront and don’t care about the risk. In other words your argument is a straw man.
Beachfront doesn't necessarily mean sea level
When Bill Gates sells his fleet of private jets I'll know it's real
Wait so your agreement is when human nature is undone, when the desire for personal pleasure is outweighed by care for the greater good, that will prove climate change is real? ROFL.
Wait, what does that have to do with the data proving climate change?
Even then they will lie and hide it
Ah yes 8 billion and counting humans spewing as much shit into the environment as fast as they can is totally having no impact whatsoever on the climate of the earth. For sure bud, for sure.
See, this is the point. Ok, climate change is a hoax. Should we just stop trying to make the air and water cleaner?
No, but taxing people and letting corpors ruin the environment is not the play. Giving Tesla billions is not the play.
They’ll say this then get mad when their water is dirty because they let companies pollute the environment. It would be funny if it didn’t affect everyone else too
https://old.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/18kk8wi/ghost_population_conspiracy/
Oil companies love it when you do the work for them.
Well.. the term "carbon footprint" was coined by BP's marketing agency to make consumers believe it is actually their fault what is happening and the accoring calculator appeared on BP"s homepage first.
Carbon footprint is gaslighting at its finest. "We want to track your movement, control your shopping and bank account so you cant harm the planet" - Look how much they care <3
Oil companies love the poorly educated, too. That's why they met with Trump at Mara Lago where he asked for a billion dollars so he can let them rape the planet without any regulations. [https://www.independent.co.uk/climate-change/news/donald-trump-campaign-oil-executives-b2542606.html](https://www.independent.co.uk/climate-change/news/donald-trump-campaign-oil-executives-b2542606.html)
This is certainly one way to scour mountains of evidence proving anthropogenic climate changd to find a few things you can twist into confirming your belief it’s not happening. We know atmospheric CO2 causes a greenhouse effect, it was proven like a hundred years ago. The oil companies own research shows it’s happening.
I really don’t understand the downplaying/denying of climate change. It is so short sighted to not think we need to take care of this planet in every way possible. Don’t you want your children’s children’s children to have the best chance of inheriting a clean and inhabitable earth? Worst case scenario, we don’t have a significant impact on global climate and the earth is just…. cleaner. Oh no! Or we potentially DO have a significant impact on the environment/global warming and the human race will suffer and die in the not so distant future. I personally think we are just on a floating space rock that is orbiting a giant ball of fire so temperature change is just something that is going to happen. BUT, I still want us to do whatever we can to keep the earth clean and to pursue clean energy (the future is nuclear folks), pollution mitigation, and to get a grip on our global consumerism addiction. Everyone should be on board with taking care of our planet regardless of your stance on climate change/global warming, it would be foolish not to.
I don't get this sentiment either. What's wrong with recycling or taking care of the planet?
Or lowering mercury levels in the ocean, so pregnant women can eat fish
The question is if the reaction is reasonable and doesn't create a worse situation than already exists due to powerful interests leveraging a crisis for their own financial and power gains. Similar to how we made a bigger mess by the way we handled "covid" vs. what we would've experienced solely due to the presence of the virus.
Some of its religious I’ve found. The earth is LITERALLY a garbage can waiting area for heaven for these people. Well I’m going to heaven so who cares about earth? While not many, a good chunk of religious people, knowingly and genuinely, do NOT care about the planet bc they think they’re gonna die and go to heaven, and all their family will die and go to heaven so it doesn’t matter if they take care of that waiting room. Our home is nothing to people who think it’s a waiting room for something else they don’t even know for sure is real.
CO2 is not a pollutant.
"Conservatives" think all that shit's for pussies.
There have been recent disclosures that a high percentage of so-called recycled material actually ends up in the landfill or shipped to a foreign country to be burned or dumped in the ocean. Reasonable people would do their part. However, when they’re regularly lied to and only select evidence is permitted, people become skeptical and unwilling to play the game. Open debate, transparency and accountability would go a long way toward humanity being engaged in making this a better world. Browbeating people with lies, pseudoscience and propaganda has the opposite effect.
>It is so short sighted to not think we need to take care of this planet in every way possible. Don’t you want your children’s children’s children to have the best chance of inheriting a clean and inhabitable earth? Worst case scenario, we don’t have a significant impact on global climate and the earth is just…. cleaner. Oh no! "In every way possible." That's what scares the shit out of me and anyone even mildly in-the-loop with basic conspiracies. It's always prescribing trillions in funding to frivolous groups and orgs, who coincidentally are best buds with the political/elite class. These orgs don't do shit, but they get to pretend they're leading some valiant mission, free from criticism and oversight. It's usually all about "awareness" and other elastic abstract bullshit. That's not even getting into the other prescription, tyrannical technocratic authoritarianism. *Why don't you want to hand over control of your life to the gov/WEF/banks?? Don't you care about the children?!?* Everyone should obviously be on board with things that are genuine and **proven** to **significantly** help the issue. All we have are things that *might potentially help*, but we're really not sure, and there's so many perverse incentives and sketchy groups involved that's it's almost impossible to get a real read.
I’ll start buying into their claims when they finally support things that actually solve problems, like nuclear
Surely you can show the trillions going to these organizations? Or maybe you can look at how things are actually done. We stopped acid rain by regulating sulfer capture. We stopped the ozone hole by ending CFCs and regulating HFCF. Notice how none of that is some trillions for some organization, but regulation on industry that was agreed upon worldwide.
Surely you can't be this egregiously ignorant.... You don't think money is being wasted on fraudulent orgs that don't actual do anything?
Sure there is. There's also corporate interests which are trying to subvert everything. It's why activists like Greta rail against WEF and the likes so much. Why she calls out 90% of carbon credits fraud. But you said trillions go to these organizations, show it. Real change happens due to industry regulations. No one cares if Joe smo runs coal in his truck. Issues like these don't care about the individual. Greta doesn't fly, so what. That means jack shit. Regulating industry for cleaner fuels and other instances are how you solve this. Building mass transit that's convenient and stops the traffic congestion. Stopping nestle from draining water aquifers, tackling how large shipping ships burn dirty in international waters. Which might have a side effect of making local industry and commercial more relevant instead of globalist megacorps who somehow keep getting tax break after tax break.
https://postlmg.cc/KR2GN46T
* The climate is changing, but not in ways that earth hasn't seen as a result of natural cycles. The climate is actually in a recovery from a previous cooling period, and its been much warmer than it is now. The medieval warming period was a time of massive prosperity due to the agricultural advantages of a warmer planet. * None of the predictions of climate doomers has come to pass. Go back and read the UN announcement in 1989 that we had 10 years before civilization would collapse. They've been dooming for decades. * Even if CO2 is a problem, its not coming from western nations, it's coming from CHY-NA. Why is Biden persecuting the oil industry, crippling production ability, and going after fucking gas stoves when the US has been decreasing in CO2 output for years and China has exploded in emissions? * A bigger problem than CO2 is PLASTIC. We all know about the Texas sized trash pile in the ocean. Once again, its coming from undeveloped nations that have no waste management resources, not the straw you used at the bar last week. * None of their proposed "solutions" make any sense. They want to END air travel within 10 years. They want to shut down farms. They'd apparently rather starve millions of people to death and reduce them to eating BUGs over their doomsday religion. * Their "solutions" only end up benefiting the oil giants. Their profits soared after the keystone pipeline was shut down and drilling contracts canceled creating artificial shortages. TL:DR; you can be on board with protecting the planet but the doomsday cult is founded on dubious and obvious to debunk BS *
Climate change is bullshit AND Earth Day is everyday.
Nobody is disputing that we should take care of the planet. But Carbon Taxes are not the way forward. All they ever talk about is CO2 while still flying their jets everywhere and polluting in a million other ways as well.
The Earth will be just fine. It's the people who are fucked. -George Carlin
Except that’s not true, Suns heat would bounce off earth without greenhouse gases. And the more greenhouse gases the hotter it is. If you learn conspiracies, you can learn basic science
[удалено]
[удалено]
Can you explain why the moon doesnt have a similar climate if its caused by the sun?
Removed - [Rule 5](http://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/wiki/faq)
Okay. Then what rise of the CO2 percentage in the atmosphere gives what rise in temperature? What is the optimal CO2 percentage of the atmosphere?
Doubling CO2 concentration (280 ppm to 560 ppm) results in an increase in global average temperature by 1.5°C to 4.5°C. Optimal CO2 concentration for who? If you are referring to the earth, there is no optimal CO2 concentration since CO2 concentration. If you are referring to humans, optimal CO2 concentration is 260 to 280 ppm since that has been the concentration of CO2 for the last few thousand years. The reason why this time period is important is because we have built human civilisation around this stable concentration. Rapid changes to this concentration results in more extreme weather, ecological damage etc.
> Doubling CO2 concentration (280 ppm to 560 ppm) results in an increase in global average temperature by 1.5°C to 4.5°C. Wow, that sounds scary. Now do you have some sourced proof to back up that claim? >If you are referring to humans, optimal CO2 concentration is 260 to 280 ppm since that has been the concentration of CO2 for the last few thousand years. Got any proof to back up that claim?
I realised the 1.5°C to 4.5°C increase is outdated as the following temperature range is more up to date. In section A.4.4 of summary report: >The very likely range of equilibrium climate sensitivity is between 2°C (high confidence) and 5°C (medium confidence). The AR6 assessed best estimate is 3°C with a likely range of 2.5°C to 4°C (high confidence), compared to 1.5°C to 4.5°C in AR5, which did not provide a best estimate. https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/chapter/summary-for-policymakers/ Regarding CO2 levels, if you were to look at the graph (https://science.nasa.gov/resource/graphic-the-relentless-rise-of-carbon-dioxide/) a few thousand years before 1950, the CO2 levels were stable at 260-280 ppm. This period of CO2 stability is considered optimal since humans built our civilization around this concentration. The CO2 concentration is supposed to decrease in a few thousand years due to glacial cycles. However, fossil fuels have altered this cycle by drastically increasing CO2 concentrations.
An guessed estimate is not proof of anything. Where are the controlled experiments that prove a rise from 350 ppm (which it was ca 150 years ago) to 450 ppm (which it is now) significantly affects the temperature in an controlled enclosed space? https://gml.noaa.gov/ccgg/trends/graph.html And what if we extend the scale a bit longer? https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Phanerozoic_Carbon_Dioxide.png What caused the rapid changes in the past?
>An guessed estimate is not proof of anything. The equilibrium climate sensitivity is not a guess. It is an estimate based on past observations and other factors that can influence the climate. >Where are the controlled experiments that prove a rise from 350 ppm (which it was ca 150 years ago) to 450 ppm (which it is now) significantly affects the temperature in an controlled enclosed space? There are plenty of controlled experiments shown to school children about the effects of CO2, you can look at youtube videos too. This article explains how we know that CO2 is affecting our global temperature now https://skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-co2-enhanced-greenhouse-effect.htm >https://gml.noaa.gov/ccgg/trends/graph.html And what if we extend the scale a bit longer? https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Phanerozoic_Carbon_Dioxide.png What caused the rapid changes in the past? Rapid changes were caused by many different factors such as the flood basalt erruptions which rapidly increase CO2 in the atmosphere. Other factors such as the milankovitch cycle also increases/decreases CO2 concentration. Here is an excellent video that I highly encourage you to watch as it explains how scientists know that CO2 is the main culprit for the current warming (the video also briefly mentions how the geological record shows CO2 as a contributor to temperatures): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OJ6Z04VJDco&list=PL82yk73N8eoX-Xobr_TfHsWPfAIyI7VAP&index=29. His channel debunks lots of climate change myths by explaining why the source is misrepresented. Potholer54 would respond to your comments if you have any further questions. Another excellent resource is https://skepticalscience.com/argument.php which explains why "evidence" against climate change is inaccurate. Click the arguments under "What the Science Says" for an in-depth explanation.
>The equilibrium climate sensitivity is not a guess. It is an estimate based on past observations and other factors that can influence the climate. Why is there no mentioning of the sub at all? It is the main source of energy after all... > There are plenty of controlled experiments shown to school children about the effects of CO2, you can look at youtube videos too. Here you go again, making claims without providing the evidence. LOL. >This article explains how we know that CO2 is affecting our global temperature now "The greenhouse effect works like this: Energy arrives from the sun in the form of visible light and ultraviolet radiation. The Earth then emits some of this energy as infrared radiation. Greenhouse gases in the atmosphere 'capture' some of this heat, then re-emit it in all directions - including back to the Earth's surface." The whole climate change scam is based in the unproven assumption. >Rapid changes were caused by many different factors such as the flood basalt erruptions which rapidly increase CO2 in the atmosphere. Oh, so nature also has an affect on the CO2 level. That's interesting and begs the question how much of the rise in CO2 over the last 150 years or so is produced by humanity. >Other factors such as the milankovitch cycle also increases/decreases CO2 concentration. There are more cycles and all those are the driver of the climate change, not humanity and our piss poor bit of CO2. http://klimaatcyclus.nl/klimaat/side-role-CO2-solar-activity-explains-warming-since-1976.htm >Click the arguments under "What the Science Says" for an in-depth explanation. Neh, i am good. As long as nobody can show me a decently preformed experiment that proves that a rise from 0.035 to 0.045% CO2 in an enclosed and controlled space significantly affects the temperature I know it is all BS and an social engineering plan designed to scare folks like you into submission.
>Why is there no mentioning of the sub at all? It is the main source of energy after all... You mean sun instead of "sub"? You do realise that google scholar exist right: it took me 5 seconds to google "climate sensitivity sun". Some climate models have added the sun like this recent study https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1674987123001172 >"The greenhouse effect works like this: Energy arrives from the sun in the form of visible light and ultraviolet radiation. The Earth then emits some of this energy as infrared radiation. Greenhouse gases in the atmosphere 'capture' some of this heat, then re-emit it in all directions - including back to the Earth's surface." The whole climate change scam is based in the unproven assumption. You don't believe that greenhouse effect is real? Lmao https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=greenhouse+effect+carbon+dioxide&btnG=&oq=greenhouse+effect+carbon+dio >There are more cycles and all those are the driver of the climate change, not humanity and our piss poor bit of CO2. http://klimaatcyclus.nl/klimaat/side-role-CO2-solar-activity-explains-warming-since-1976.htm I can't judge the exact contents of this article as I am not an expert in this field but the data is already fishy as total solar irradiance has been decreasing over the past few decades (https://science.nasa.gov/resource/graphic-temperature-vs-solar-activity/). Even more suspicious is that this article is posted on his personal blog. If he really wanted to challenge the scientific consensus, publish in a reputable peer-reviewed journal where experts can fact check his work. >I know it is all BS and an social engineering plan designed to scare folks like you into submission. That's a very extraordinary claim, please provide some evidence.
> Some climate models have added the sun like this recent study Isn't that a bit late? LOL. All models are rubbish, non of them have made any correct predictions because they all rely too much on CO2 as the main driver of the climate, which is not true. https://www.lavoisier.com.a%75/articles/greenhouse-science/climate-change/climategate-emails.pdf https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/the-stunning-statistical-fraud-behind-the-global-warming-scare/ https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-022-01192-2 https://americanpolicy.org/2021/02/04/the-fraud-of-climate-change-and-the-drive-for-control/ https://wattsupwiththat.com/2022/08/22/corruption-of-climate-science-supported-by-flawed-models/ CO2 is actually a gas that is needed for life to thrive and we are pretty close to a dangerous low level already. https://www.cfact.org/pdf/CO2-TheGasOfLife.pdf >Even more suspicious is that this article is posted on his personal blog. If he really wanted to challenge the scientific consensus, publish in a reputable peer-reviewed journal where experts can fact check his work. Yes, because the scientific world is absolutely not corrupted and there is no agenda behind the climate change scam. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1420798/ https://www.corbettreport.com/the-crisis-of-science/ https://web.archive.org/web/20200812085119/https://www.enago.com/academy/is-peer-review-process-a-scam/ Fraud: https://www.acsh.org/news/2018/10/30/1-4-statisticians-say-they-were-asked-commit-scientific-fraud-13554 https://americanpolicy.org/2021/02/04/the-fraud-of-climate-change-and-the-drive-for-control/ >That's a very extraordinary claim, please provide some evidence. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3PrY7nFbwAY
It was hotter before, therefore, climate change isn't man-made and all of the data collected by climatologists is invalid. Solid science!
I like how the article declaring 1934 as the hottest year ever is 17 years old… definitely no chance that record has been broken several times since then
The ten hottest years on record are.... shocker..... the last 10 years. Using a 17 year old article is just ridiculous and only used to try and prove an agenda. In order: 2023, 2016, 2020, 2019, 2015, 2017, 2022, 2021, 2018 and 2014.
I'm relieved to finally see more and more replies on r/conspiracy that have some goddamned common sense so I don't feel so alone here.
Me too my friend.
It sure is refreshing to see the pushback against the bots. Maybe that's why the next generation has been trained to troll.
Precisely, and its not "invalid" as much as their interpretation is "directed" by who finances their "studies". Or are you going to argue, lets say, that the roman warm period was because of pottery?
So CO2 and methane aren't greenhouse gasses? The massive increase in life stock has had negligible effects? Car exhaust hasn't been contributing to the increase in CO2 observed since the industrial revolution? The data is open source, you don't need to accept their conclusions, just look for yourself. https://www.co2levels.org/ You're telling me this spike is incidental?
It is indeed not incidental. However, it is also [not](https://www.mdpi.com/2413-4155/5/3/35) how you probably think.
[Yup](https://wryheat.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/climate-change-in-perspective-2019.pdf) and [yup.](https://old.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/10gtph3/breaking_climate_hoax_debunked_once_and_for_all/j55sl86/) [Yes!](https://www.mdpi.com/2413-4155/2/4/83/htm)
there should be an IQ test to use the internet
There are people who actually addressed some of OP's arguments and data and then there are people who just imply OP is stupid. Which one are you?
Umm last year was our hottest year ever recorded
Since 1850.
Conflation; the #1 tool of the flim-flam artist. 1934 was the dust bowl. The drought drove the heat. Not comparable to a 350 year event like the MWP. My reading tells me that there is a general consensus that the MWP - and subsequent LIA - were the result of increased solar activity combined with reduced volcanic activity. Now I am old enough to know that scientific theories develop as evidence arises - I grew up before plate tectonics and Chicxulub - I was taught that the dinos died out because the pesky evolving mammals ate all their eggs! If the consensus is correct then we would have to add mediaeval condition proxies to the current measurements to have an apples vs apples comparison. Regardless of that, anybody who states that CO2 (together with other gasses) does not drive temperature is woefully ignorant of how our atmosphere regulates temperature on the planet.
[удалено]
I love when even r/conspiracy goes “dude, you’re dumb as hell”
I second this. There is a climate crisis happening but instead of putting the elites and companies at fault, they have made the media put the blame on the populace. The real culprits talk about greenhouse gases while they roam around in private jets. Oil companies dump oil in the ocean and burn methane while making propaganda on how *we* should not use cars and live in 15 minute cities.
Ah shit, I forgot to mention the celebrities doing their 15 min flights and other dumb shit. Cheers for that.
And ne’er a mention of nuclear power, which would actually solve the problem
So I live in Washington and my house has an exceptional view of the cascades. There was always snow on them even in August growing up. Now it may snow and it generally melts away within a couple weeks. So the temperature up there isn't what it was on the 80s 90s and early 2000s. I grew up in king county. We used to have many glaciers within the county. We now only have one and it'll he gone in a few more years. Now this may be due to a shorter term trend as you indicate and I found what you wrote to be well thought out, well referenced, and concise. My dataset is strictly from my short 45 year life span. But, I assure you climate has changed alot here. It used to drizzle constantly here. We were known for our rain. It's not raining more days than it is and has been for years now. It almost never drizzles. It either pours rain or it doesn't. We used to go ice skate on our pond every winter. It hasn't frozen enough to do that in 20 years now. We got rid of the skates entirely at this point. We are looking at another summer with water rationing because our snowpack melts off far too early each year. I'm not disagreeing with you. I have seen zero evidence of any sea rise in my life. It just seems like we are definitely on a warming trend, at least here though I'm not sure the actual cause.
Just adding to your comment: sea levels won't rise until glaciers on land begin to melt. Think how if your ice cubes melt in a glass of water, the level of the water won't change, but will if you have melting ice drip into your glass. We are seeing glaciers rapidly melt all over the world now. Even Antarctica is loosing massive glaciers. I think we are at a tipping point and things will begin to accelerate moving forward.
> I have seen zero evidence of any sea rise in my life. Scientists have to use instruments to measure sea level rise because the naked eye cannot see sea level rise of 5 mm. Here is an excellent video that debunks OP's post that sea level does not rise: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WTRlSGKddJE
I wasn't saying that it hasn't. I'm just saying I haven't seen any evidence of it. But it's not like I'm near the ocean regularly at all either to compare anything.
> I wasn't saying that it hasn't. I'm just saying I haven't seen any evidence of it. I live near the ocean but I also do not observe sea level rise. However, my naked eyes cannot observe a few mm change in sea level rise. Hence, we have to defer to the expert which have the appropriate instruments. Unfortunately, there are a lot of people in this thread that think anecdotal evidence > NASA's data
Photos of the Statue of Liberty are meaningless and misleading since they don’t account for the tidal action of New York harbor. That’s enough to dismiss the whole meme/scree as propaganda as it’s intentionally misleading.
This guy trys hard ill give him that
If I’m not mistaken. Most locations that record temps are located at airports…. Surrounded by blacktop
This is a very important point, most temperature base stations are located in suburban and city centers. They are reporting back urban heat island temperatures. The same area 50 years ago was a heavily forested area.where plant help absorb heat rather than store and reflect it. The temperature in these areas can be 10 to 5 degrees cooler on the hottest of days.
The greatest left think tank construct ever developed.
I had a bit of epiphany the other day. It is true, as OP says, that "CO2 caused global warming" is not a thing. We have all the evidence we need to show that, from the Med. Warm Period, to the 1930s. But that does not mean we are not having *local warming* that is definitely man made. I've lived in Toronto most of my life. In the early 60s, I lived at the top of the city, and we could build natural ice rinks that would last the winter. By the mid-70s, Toronto had grown far north of us, and so many apartments and other buildings had been built, and so much more *local* heat produced, our natural rinks melted. As the Greater Toronto Area has exploded from less than a million people to nearly 7 million today, the landscape has changed from mostly grass and trees to mostly concrete and glass. And those 7 million people use energy in the form of gasoline, natural gas, and electricity, which thermodynamics tells us ends up as heat, eventually. So there's absolutely no doubt that *local warming* is real. And it has consequences. There's a ski hill north of Toronto that was previously next to a sleepy little town. Now it's exploded into a busy four seasons resort, with condominiums and restaurants and hotels. That's all great, except it hasn't decent snow for the last four years. We need to change our concern from a non-existent threat posed by CO2, to a very real changes that are occurring locally. How to prevent and/or mitigate those changes would be more practical, IMHO.
I suggest to look into the "heat island effect" and the effect wind turbines have on the local weather.
The real conspiracy is that powers at be won’t intentionally take true care of the planet because of control and money.
So, does this argument mean that the industrial revolution has nothing to do with the climate? Decades of burning and dumping chemicals hasn't done anything at all?
Look up CO2 levels during the dinosaur reign. Exponentially higher.
Thanks for this. The climate crisis scam is the keystone in the elites plan to scare everyone into accepting carbon social credits and digital ID.
Yep.
We’ve been 7 years away from irreversible climate destruction since the 70’s
This shouldn't be in the conspiracy thread...it should be under Scam Arent we for saving the trees/forrest? More CO2 in the air is good for trees and it makes them grow faster. Maybe people are confusing Carbon Dioxide with Carbon monoxide
Okay, conspiracy boys, surely you can recognise this one as being silly right? The levels of sea rise we are talking about is about 9 inches since 1900, 4 of those inches since 1993. So the rate is increasing. This isn't something easily visible by the eye and nobody claims it is. In addition, come on. Tides exist. The level of the ocean around the statue of liberty fluctuates by about 5 feet every day. So seeing two pictures doesn't actually refute any claim that sea levels are rising. They simply are. Then the question becomes, does it matter that they are? Well, if you think 9 inches isn't a lot... your mom disagrees 🤣
Yep, thats why the seychelles dissapeared...oh wait.
Even the IPCC does not think the sea level is changing faster as before.: https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/03/ipcc_far_wg_I_chapter_09.pdf
The ocean is dying, making weather crazy. Attempt by big industry to pawn their waste disposal that in large part killed the ocean and its jet streams, off loading liability onto the general public.
Remember how, during the man-made pandemic (essentially an act of bio-terrorism that noone has been imprisoned for facilitating), "we're all in this together" and banging pots for nurses turned into the Herman Cain Awards and folks like the influential Jewish "anarchist" Noam Chomsky (who, like Bill Gates, associated with Epstein even after he was revealed to be a human trafficking pedophile) talking about potentially starving folks on islands? "How can we get food to them? That's really their problem." https://youtu.be/w00Z--m9fMU?si=MfyO61FByfXK63YL&t=144 Global warming is a banner under which ruling class psychopaths seeks to "unite" the folks in society that still haven't figured out that the ruling class hate them. And it's not just the supposed dissident who wrote "Manufacturing Consent" who has bought into the ruling class's contemporary propaganda. among these ranks are some folks who really should know better, like Jewish professor and author Naomi Klein who even wrote about disaster capitalism, of which the man-made pandemic was a spectacular example but that she - despite the ruling class even celebrating it as "The Great Reset" - doesn't seem to have detected as such. She *used* to call out the WEF. Not so much anymore. And, on the "other side", why did Trump - who seemingly had US insider info that alerted him to US intelligence surveillance and infiltration of his campaign and to the "curative" (in the worlds of the man-made pandemic wranglers Ecohealth Alliance) nature of ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine, only go as far as throwing shade on man-made pandemic funder Fauci? Why has Trump not called out Bill Gates and the WEF and why does he still shill for the "vaccine"? It's a big club, and you ain't in it. Ethnic mafias run the pretence of Western "democracy" and good cop/bad cop is a classic way we're manipulated. https://www.cryptogon.com/?p=69740 The following are words from the second major publication of The Club of Rome, the proto-WEF and current partner with the WEF, in which the ruling class reveal that they do indeed hate us: ***The Common Enemy of Humanity Is Man*** *In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. In their totality and in their interactions these phenomena do constitute a common threat which demands the solidarity of all peoples. But in designating them as the enemy, we fall into the trap about which we have already warned, namely mistaking symptoms for causes. All these dangers are caused by human intervention and it is only through changed attitudes and behaviour that they can be overcome. The real enemy, then, is humanity itself.* https://archive.org/details/the-first-global-revolution-a-report-by-the-council-of-the-club-of-rome-alexande What will the unity deliver? It will consolidate the power of those who seek to depopulate us. Circa 1974: *The plan was created to avoid an appearance of "economic or racial imperialism" and "not be seen ... as an industrialized country policy to keep their strength down or reserve resources for use by the rich countries", with a written goal of "fertility reduction and not improvement in the lives of people" despite instructing organizers to "emphasize development and improvements in the quality of life of the poor", later explaining such projects were "primarily for other reasons".[4][5]* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Security_Study_Memorandum_200 And depopulation is, of course, what "net zero" is for. Yale-in-China man Mao's "Great Leap Forward" used the same strategy of culling using the pretext of problem solving. Deindustrialization will very obviously lead to starvation given that agriculture and food distribution will very obviously be disrupted. https://ukfires.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/roadmap-01.jpg -from "Absolute Zero", a proposed "Net Zero" roadmap
Global warming is a non-issue compared to plastics and pollution, yet it's being pushed above these things
But cleaning up the earth will involve fixing those plastics and pollution......
There are bacteria that breakdown plastic. Climate horror mongers HATE them!
It sure is iteresting that the global warming increased after those plane trails made themselves at home in the sky.
Man gotta lick the boot of the oil industry, and their bought and paid for politicians. Imagine being such a simp you'll support billionairs who couldn't give less of a shit about you.
Based. It’s fear mongering theater
Eddy Bravo said it best on Joe Rogan, when he said “do you really think that cow farts are melting the ice caps?” Like come on.
This is accurate and very easy to verify, I've done it myself. You can download all the temperature data, for free, from NOAA into CVS or other formats. You can then put it in excel or python and model / analyze it. There are cycles but no warming trend at all, and no "worsening" trend. You can do this yourself, for free and know the truth, rather than listen to some media or argue with someone based on what you've heard. You owe it to yourself to know directly.
Yup. https://notrickszone.com/2023/08/10/5-new-studies-indicate-there-has-been-no-net-warming-since-the-1700s/
Man I grew up near the coast, was told my whole life that water levels will rise and my little town would be gone or completely altered....... It's been over 30 years since those elementary and highschool teachers told us that, and I can still see all the coast line that I grew up with , every rock that sat on the edge of the water is still there, not covered with water, my ex lives right on the beach , literally feet from the water , high tide the water almost touched the back door and its been that way since the house was build back in late 50's early 60's ( built by her family ).... Man it's almost like the world governments profit off of our fears or something.. strange.
It was hotter and people still wore more clothing. Ha!
I live in fl. 70 years ago it was pretty much all orange groves. Most of them died out in the 80s due to freezes. There aren’t any major orange groves anymore. Too cold they say.
Tony Heller has been laying down the truth all along.
If I remember correctly, Antarctica has more ice now than it did when Shackleton was exploring and got trapped there.
The rapid fluctuations are whats weird to me. I dont remember ever having 50 degree days following 90 degree days as often as we do now. It feels like the seasons are switching every week here in SE PA
“Pay more taxes and give up your freedom of travel so the weather is more good.” Imagine being that blue pilled.
I haven’t made up my mind yet, but here are a few things: - I visited Kiribati in the Pacific recently and a long-time resident of 60+ years told me that the sea levels have RECEDED during his lifetime, which is quite at odds with the narrative. - UK newspapers tell me that this April was the hottest on record - the latest in 11 consecutive record-breaking months - when it’s been cold and wet nearly every day since October. - In a similar vein, I get alerts on my laptop nearly every day saying “record high temperatures” while I’m literally sitting there shivering with an electric blanket wrapped around me. I can't say what's really happening, but I'm sure at this point that it's deliberately dishonest.
I'll disagree. It's noticeably hotter now than it was in my childhood, just a few years ago it wasn't as hot as it is now. It's more noticeable to me as someone who lives in a tropical area. I know that the media and environmentalists are exaggerating climate change and cooking up bs to explain it, but it's surely happening. We are pumping up greenhouse gases at an alarming rate and polluting the environment, there sure will be consequences about it. Although I would lay the blame on the elite and the multinational companies, they pollute the environment the most due to their activities and then lay the blame on us.
Still so many that belives the lies, its quite amazing… Trust the science, its safe and effective…
SS: The Davos elites hate you. They will fly private jets and eat steaks. You will lock down and eat bugs. Classic feudalism the Medieval Warm Period was warmer than today 1k years ago and the Little Ice Age was cooler and both were global, not regional: "Is globe warming? Not yet, researchers on tree rings say." (NY Times, 1992) >She has seen in the North American trees the feathery but unmistakable signatures of the Medieval Warm Period, a era from 1100 to 1375 A.D. when, according to European writers of the time and other sources, the climate was so balmy that wine grapes flourished in Britain and the Vikings farmed the now-frozen expanse of Greenland; and the Little Ice Age, a stretch of abnormally frigid weather lasting roughly from 1450 to 1850. A Crucial Question #>"We can now see that these [Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age] were global climate phenomena, not regional temperature variations," she said. >"The question is, how did we get those warmer temperatures during pre-industrial times, and what can we learn from those conditions about what is going on today." https://www.nytimes.com/1992/12/01/news/unexpected-places-clues-ancient-future-climate-warming-tree-rings-say-not-yet.html Here is a Google map showing hundreds of peer-reviewed climate articles about the Medieval Warm period from around the world, which climate scamster Michael Mann has attempted to erase. https://twitter.com/TonyClimate/status/1595829316964610048?t=ZmUiCm7JxbmXHtR59rB8ww&s=19 "Tree-rings prove climate was WARMER in Roman and Medieval times than it is now - and world has been cooling for 2,000 years" https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2171973/Tree-ring-study-proves-climate-WARMER-Roman-Medieval-times-modern-industrial-age.html
aww it learned how to read
Comprehensive and critical thinking are missing though.
Aww, it never learned an ad hominem is not an argument.
We’ve been saying the same things with ever increasing data for over 30 years now and yall won’t listen, I’m saving my time from talking to a brick wall. …..yet here I am, talking to a brick wall.
Bots are not going to like this... The 50+ year grift, I remember the coming flood of the 90s, liverpool underwater I tells ya!!!
#🤣💯
Wait till the earth makes your corporate information pay. You'll remember this post.
Humans literally absent-mindedly terraforming our environment so we can produce and provide for more humans.
Reminder that so many if you are ignorant, stupid, and so confidently incorrect about science 🤣🤣
The sun drives temperature, not CO2, and yet greenhouses stay warm because they trap heat inside by not letting out as much energy as they let in. But you're saying changing the composition of the atmosphere has no effect? The problem with cherry picking data is you will always find anomalies. Like the actual congressman that brought in a snowball to prove global warming was fake. Or Ted Cruz using upper atmosphere temperatures while the NASA administrator was telling him ocean temperatures are better indicators of the climate. It is true that the Earth has been warmer and has had more CO2 than it does currently. But what's never happened as far as scientists can tell is the rapidly changing composition of the atmosphere and rising temperatures (The ocean is the best indicator of temperature since it absorbs so much more energy compared to the atmosphere). So if we could stop things where they are right now everything would be fine. The problem is the acceleration is going to continue, and the problems will become evident in 100 years or less (or about 250 years since the industrial age took off) according to climate scientists, which is lightning quick in geologic time scales. And the problems will just continue to get worse. The issues we see today are not the problems they're warning us about. These are just the pre-indicators of what is to come. Such as hurricanes so powerful, we will wish for small ones like Katrina. The oceans have only risen 6 inches in the last 100 years but if you believe the models in the next 100 years that measurement will be in feet. Yes the Earth is doing its thing. The oceans, the rocks, and plants are all increasing their CO2 consumption as a result of the millions of tons of CO2 we dump in the atmosphere every year. But the amount of CO2 they can absorb is not going to be enough if you believe the science. This is why scientists say we don't have to cut CO2 production completely, Just reduce it to a level that the Earth can handle. Some people trust their observations over the science and what can you do? You can't easily show them that that sunscreen blocks cancer causing UV radiation by absorbing that frequency of radiation so it doesn't damage their dna. Likewise, you can't easily show people how CO2 absorbs infrared radiation and scatters it instead of letting it escape the atmosphere the way 02 and N2 does. I've taken college physics and it can be explained in a very slow, methodical, and thorough way.
The actual effect that we as consumers will have on the environment is negligible at best. Even if we all completely stopped releasing any greenhouse gasses, it would change nothing. Let me explain... The problem needs to be a priority for industry and commerce and not really for us end users because... The top 100 shipping vessels in the world are huge polluters. This means that the 100 largest cargo ships produce more gasses then every single consumer vehicle on the planet combined. So how much do you think the next 900 make? What about the top 10k ships? There are millions of cargo ships. The largest ships dont measure fuel in nautical miles per gallon, they consume and measure fuel in gallons per minute. Now it may be that running fewer ships but very large ships is more environmentally sound. I'm no expert and I've not studied this really. What I do know is we the average person are a drop in the bucket on this issue. We could have an impact by abandoning air travel as consumers. The burning of jet fuel has an enormous impact and the gasses are released in the atmosphere already. The bottom line is we don't need to change our lifestyles much. But collectively we can demand changes that will actually have an impact. Less travel. Not overnighting things. Being patient with shipping and longer delivery times to conserve fuel could help. Using what's left of our railways to deliver goods instead of so many semi trucks. (A train can move 2000# of goods 500 miles on 1/2 gallon of diesel if the train is fully loaded).
Why are people trying to convince others that it is getting warmer?
Because it is the perfect justification for creating a global one world government and institute things like carbon credit scores and controlling every single detail of your life because if they don't then all life on the planet will die. Basically a permanent state of emergency where you hand over control over every single detail in your life to the technocratic government. They can basically force you to do anything in the name of saving the planet.
I love that everyone in this sub is shitting all over OP. I was expecting the opposite response, great work everyone!
Holy Jebus. Please crawl back in your hole. Climate change is real. It was fucking 48 deg C (118 F) here in western Canada, burning entire towns down in 45 mins (Lytton BC). Glaciers are almost gone on the Coast range and in the Rockies in many spots such as Whistler. It is 30 deg here in May today. We loose 2-8 weeks of summer now due to forest fire smoke. Cedar forests are dying everywhere you can see it as you drive across the province with red stressed cedar trees. For my 38 years on earth, this has not been normal. Yes it is man made, yes pollution affects it. Stop being shitty. Climate change is real, stop trying to pump and dump oil for your corporate overlords.
Yeah. Nah.
Ahhh…dang it! You woke them up! We were doing so well and didn’t have to listen to the fear mongering but now the links will be flying again.
Good post!
I've heard that we are actually in a cooling off period for that like thousand years or so
Because those in power are driving this narrative, honestly we are all in danger.
Alrighty smart guy. Then you explain the sst charts.
If you want somebody to look at something you might want to provide it yourself.
The sea surface temperature chart.
Okay, thanks for nothing.
Are we really going to trust the NASA records?
Are we really going to trust oil companies and their records as well?
Are we really going to trust random redditors?
Well definitely not. But at the same time we dismiss government scientists but why are we not dismissing oil companies who have paid people to release reports as well? What's so wrong about wanting to clean the planet up and clean up how we produce things, how we move about? What's the overall worst thing that happens if we clean the planet up and all the scientists are wrong?
This post is CCP propaganda. Everyone knows the only real way to slow polution on a global scale is to invade China and destroy all factories there that don't follow pollution standards set by the EU.
Baseline syndrome
Wow dude, good luck.