I don't see the problem with Agenda 21, in theory. Everything can be abused, but since it's non-binding I seriously see nothing wrong with it. But I'm not an expert in that, so ignore my opinions.

falsifying data […] proves the theory that the theory sucks, and the scientist is worse. it's disgraceful.

It proves that the scientist is bad, and it is disgraceful, but it doesn't prove that the theory sucks. Maybe they did find a trend, but it wasn't strong enough, so they artificially inflated it. Doesn't mean there was no trend. You're opening yourself up to easy manipulation with your false belief that somebody trying to fake evidence for something means that the thing they're faking evidence for is false; all I'd need to do is fake evidence that I'm trying to do a bad thing, then everybody will believe that I'm not.

… wai— Moving on!

most theorys are scrapped; as most fail round 1 testing. no supporting evidence.

But that doesn't mean that they're wrong. This happened to Gregor Mendel's findings on inheritance, for instance, but now we know about genetics there is sufficient supporting evidence for people to take it seriously.

This is the force behind the climate change scare. […] That's the end game if this push.

Now, this is tricky. Do we:

• all die; or
• let other people profit at our expense.

I take the third option:

• not die, and not let other people profit at our expense

since the industrial revolution (+120 years) the increase in atmospheric CO2 is from 00.0350% to 00.0410%. can this truly be significant? half of a thousandth percent!?

A 17% increase can be significant. There's enough CO2 for plants to grow. Given that there's only about 10 parts per million of ozone in the ozone layer, and that does stuff, I think 4100 parts per million of CO2 is enough to be significant.

The effects of CO2 are plausible; it's been replicated in lab conditions. It certainly makes a difference. What we should be arguing is whether this difference is enough to be causing the problems we see today. When scientists become activists, we lose the ability to distinguish between truth, wishful thinking and lies.

the climate has been changing for millennia.
we exited an ice age roughly 10,000 years ago.
this trend does, and will continue.

What, you mean the Pleistocene mass-extinction event? I don't **** care if this is natural, I don't want to die. We should be taking action to stop this, even if it's a "natural process".

Honestly, I couldn't care less about Agenda 21. Ensuring that the planet remains liveable for us is more important than internal politics, quite frankly, because if we're all dead then politics mean nothing.

Note that I've been using hyperbole. We probably wouldn't all die, but people would.