you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]roc 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Temperature records are still being broken frequently, the climate has not stopped warming in 1997:

[–]Tom_Bombadil 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Temp records are broken all the time.

Also, thanks for including that land-ocean graph on the link you provided.

The climate modelers were so desperate to maintain the appearance of temp increases that they fraudulently started combining the ocean temps, because they're unverifyable by fact checkers.
Major climate scientists have even refused to provide data for review (upon request), because they knew that the "models" and the "data" would be dismantled for the sham that they are.

Notice that they only added in the ocean data, when the climate warming stopped.
Crucially, the CO2 levels continue to increase in the air, and the air isn't continuing to warm.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I appreciate the insightful discussion.

I believe the main point argument has run its course and I share the same beliefs as you. My reasoning is: if half the world was on fire hundreds of millions of years ago, and also covered in a sheet of ice many times, it’s hard to think that a single species taking sludge out of the ground and burning it would have any effect.

I’d like to steer the conversation towards the motive behind advocating for climate action. This was briefly mentioned by you and I recently formed my own belief on it.

My belief is that I don’t need a final conclusion proving or disproving mankind’s effect on the climate. There are plenty of reasons to pursue the “solutions” to climate change. Such as: eliminating unaesthetic piles of trash floating in the ocean and harnessing energy that will outlast humans (renewables). I agree that any man purposefully skewing research to further his business is undoubtedly evil. But there’s is good in this world as well. Whether climate change is man’s fault or not, our “solutions” will be beneficial to us either way.

Have you driven a Tesla? It’s fucking insane. It feels like a cloud but handles like a saw blade. I’m a gear head myself, and it pains me to admit electric beats combustion. It’s also worth noting that the oil wells will one day run dry, with no efficient lab alternative. This is not the case for renewables. You and I know renewable technology is still primitive, but the wind will always blow as the sun shines. I see no harm in companies profiting from the fruits of their products. I see harm in false information leading to a sense of impending doom.

[–]Tom_Bombadil 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I believe the main point argument has run its course

Most of the activity currently happening is useful. Such as:

  • Renewables
  • Recycling
  • Pollution/contamination reduction
  • Energy improved efficiency.
  • Etc.

These are all value added activities, and should be encouraged.

I’d like to steer the conversation towards the motive behind advocating for climate action.

The negative activity is the climate change hoax that has hijacked the environmental movement.

It's being used to advance the UN Agemda 21.
It's easily the greatest social engineering scheme ever deployed in history, and it's already being rolled out.