If climate change is a hoax, who exactly benefits? I'm not sure how so many people can say its not real, try to red pill me with concrete facts.
If climate change is a hoax, who exactly benefits? I'm not sure how so many people can say its not real...
Jack Reed
Other urls found in this thread:
youtube.com
youtube.com
youtube.com
archive.is
therebel.media
en.wikipedia.org
twitter.com
Jack Richardson
Investors in carbon credit schemes and climate scientists seeking fat grants.
Always, always follow the money.
Adam Carter
People with stocks on sustainable companies, companies developing renewable sources of energy, academics that can write pointless shit and be awarded for it and the people who invented the hoax in the first place, because they also invented solutions that they own.
Kevin Hernandez
The elite.
Logan Gray
watch this. Its a great intro youtube.com
Matthew Adams
less of a question of weather it is or is not a hoax. The practical implementation of human action to counteract human impacted climate change of a first world country far exceeds any justifiable means. denial of the concept allows salvage of personal morality.
John James
My understanding is that there is sort of a mutually beneficial relationship between scientists who operate on govt research grants (typically working at bureaucratic non profits research orgs if not at uni ), politicians on the environmental and economic left (save the planet through big govt regulations and more justified tax revenue), energy companies that receive subsidies to operate (and would otherwise be insolvent).
By producing scientific evidence of the warming climate, it's obviously a problem, so use some tax payer financed grants to further research (these research orgs are the main providers of the relevant data that the public receives) then the govt has to step in to save the world, let's regulate the industry and discourage carbon emissions through a new (and virtually all industries would be paying some of the tax, with the fossil fuel industry paying the most) and now we got some companies with magic science research stuff that has promising ongoing development of the next renewable energy that just needs some money to sustain it's own operations. It's on the verge of replacing all fossil fuels. Gibs subsidies.
Is it a conspiracy? I don't think so, I think there might be people fudging numbers a bit because they think they are doing the right thing.
They see a real man-caused warming trend and we need to get on it, so for this or that paper we should keep this piece of data out and put this adjusted piece at the front. There; now the public will understand the magnitude of this.
Never mind that it isn't exactly a reflection of the measurements on the ground. We gotta win them over.
Noah Davis
The members of the United Nations. And all power hungry politicians.
Chase Johnson
Isaiah Sanchez
Oil companies, think about it.
Hunter Jenkins
It's very simple:
Control c02 output, and you control the economy. Tax c02 output, and you become fabulously wealthy beyond anyone's dreams.
It is the ultimate power. And these monstrous Marxist maniacs want this power.
They will never stop trying to convince the world that c02 must be taxed and regulated because if we don't, 'the world will end.'
It is the most extensive scam ever perpetrated on mankind and all the conspirators need to, at the very least, be sued down to their last cent.
Thomas Stewart
Mostly the government or the state itself,which has an excuse to expand it's regulatory power over the individual "oh those evil capitalist pigs are destroying the planet,if you give me more power ill put an end to it"
Carson Allen
Here's how you can know Global Warming is a hoax.
No one proposes an actual solution. Its all temporary fixes.
The "problem" is carbon dioxide, the "solutions" offered do not actually solve the "problem."
Plant more trees? Trees release all that CO2 they absorbed when they die.
Stop eating meat? Plants get more CO2, which we then eat, which we then exhale back into the atmosphere.
Stop our industry and live a primitive way of life? Too late, and that doesn't drop CO2 levels, it keeps them exactly where they are now.
All the proposed "solutions" keep that CO2 here on the surface.
There is only one solution possible for this supposed problem, put the carbon back where it came from, back underground or under the waves.
There is only one surefire way to do this. Grow algae, and then pump the algae where we got the oil and natural gas from in the first place.
No one proposes it, so we can conclude that global warming is not a problem. All the proposed solutions keep us exactly where we are currently at, to keep us under the control of whomever is proposing their current false solution.
Hunter Garcia
>who exactly benefits?
Those whose life's work is to expand the power of government, people who want an uninterrupted supply of government grants and other gibs, corrupt university systems with an infinite growth model, "green energy" sector sycophants like Obama's campaign donors, and last but not least, hawks who see climate change as a way to browbeat BRICs countries like China. It's just another canard like the War on Terror, meant to funnel endless funding toward government-private sector complexes.
Even the Military Industrial Complex has started trying to cash in on it, producing white papers on how climate change will lead to war and require billions in advance to prepare for future conflicts.
Joshua Turner
Aaron White
Arabs. Western countries reduce their drilling and increase their dependency on the Saudis.
Wyatt Hernandez
The incalculable amount of variables which factor into climate are impossible for us to comprehend much less measure, disseminate and discern each influence with every other corresponding variable affected. It is closer to chaos than picking out a handful of environmental flags and stating such a blanket explanation as fact.
Even the simplest of processes become near chaotic when examined in ever increasingly smaller scale much less planetary. Improvements in data collection with disregard to localized environmental and topographic variables (changed or underreported), coupled with the sheer amount of data collected for comparison antiquates previous data in scope and methodology.
Climatology is political party, which explains the wildly unreasonable reaction to qualified dissension in peer review, refusal of data sharing and dismissal of the need for reproduction when errors and falsifications are present. If it had remained in the scientific realm, it would still be called Meteorology. That every climatologist concurs, what they were taught and are now teaching is fact, means nothing. Experimenter bias can be attributed to much more than a salary in the prestige of fronting humanity saving research in our dire final hour, receiving awards and accolades and earning a prominent place in the regulatory behemoth established to counter the contrived results before they show no fruition. It might just focus data gathering at predetermined locations of concentrated production of the conformational data required.
Evan Lopez
The embedded politics are on display when all importance is placed on halting progress and limiting freedoms instead of countering the perceived effects through their own means of collection, disposal, or production of whatever they imagine will balance things out.
If man's influence on climate change was correctly represented as a hypothesis, it would not currently be the basis for the regulatory systems being devised, causing apoplectic opposition to the devastating economic ramifications and repression of civil liberties. Then research with the removal of politics being of foremost prominence in the exclusion of experimental bias would ensure the integrity of the studies and true consensus can be found.
Aiden Carter
think companies trying to take over land and produce anti climate change tech benefit
Xavier Wood
from earlier today: archive.is
Bentley Taylor
Expansion of state power and regulatory power, seizures of properties for environmental purposes and an extra carbon tax the populous would willingly pay for. Plus it's an invisible boogeyman that the democrat party can use to gather votes because they're the only ones who can see it and fight it.
It's like every other doomsday cult, the world is going to end so give me power because I'm the only one who can stop it. This shit has been done for thousands of years and now they're dragging "science" into it.
Jeremiah James
Climate change in general is real, the planet has had multiple dramatic climate shifts in the past. Anthropogenic (human caused) climate change is still very much up for debate, especially considering that other geological action (volcanoes namely) produce vastly more greenhouse gas than the entirety of the human species.
>Who benefits.
Governments, because frightened people will give them more power so they can regulate the carbon emission of private companies.
Pro-anthropogenic climate scientists, who have for decades now been producing inaccurate models of what we should be seeing, but instead of simply being discarded like creationism or geocentrism, they remain relevant by constantly perpetuating their as-yet unverified hypothesis.
"Green" energy producers and developers (wind farms take up vast swaths of space, kill animals, and interfere with bird migration and solar panels also take up vast ammounts of space, while also requiring highly toxic glass treating chemicals to be used in their construction, not to mention strip mining for the rare earths which are necessary for their function).
Climate change isn't a hoax or a fake, but the idea that humanity has somehow contributed significantly to it or can somehow grind the planet's natural climatological cycles to a halt is utterly and completely absurd.
Jack Powell
therebel.media
They argue that everyone else was guilty of environmental destruction because of their avarice and wasteful ways.
Environmentalism as a political agenda is pushed by extremely wealthy and powerful left wing people who made their money exploiting the environment.
Collectively, most of these environmentalists people acted through their privileged group called the Club of Rome. The founding meeting of the Club occurred in 1968 at David Rockefeller’s estate
In their 1994 book "The First Global Revolution," they declared:
“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. All these dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome. The real enemy then, is humanity itself."
it is needed to overcome what they see as the divisiveness of nation-states and to justify the establishment of one-world government or global socialism. Global warming is a global problem, they insist, that national governments alone cannot resolve.
They finally settled on global warming as the environmental issue best suited for their goal.
Global warming and the identification of human produced CO2 as the problem suited all the political, financial, and religious controls, a socialist group desire.
The Kyoto Protocol was presented as a solution to the problem of human-caused global warming. Those who created the Protocol also created the problem. Through the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) they produced the science required to support their claim. It is a well-thought out, well-planned, classic circular argument. Create the problem, create the proof of the problem -- then offer the solution.
Jason Jones
Your ignorance of science doesn't put science up for debate--it just leaves you ignorant. If you take a scale and put 1000lbs on each side, then add just one pound to just one side, the scale tips.
Yes: there are many non-human sources of greenhouse gasses, in a careful equilibrium. Yes: human-driven contributions are small when compared to the natural sources. No: that does not mean that there is a debate over whether the contribution that humans are making are driving climate change. They are. The science is not up for it debate. It is completely, and totally, settled.
Thomas Gomez
>impossible to comprehend
Maybe for retards...
CO2 absorbs energy. Increased CO2 means an increase in the total energy of the Earth System. Increased energy = increased temperature.
Nolan Nelson
I like the way this image puts it
Tyler Barnes
foreign nations
Caleb Gutierrez
en.wikipedia.org
The Limits to Growth is a 1972 book about the computer simulation of exponential economic and population growth with finite resource supplies.[1] Funded by the Volkswagen Foundation[2] and commissioned by the Club of Rome
used the World3 model to simulate[3][4] the consequence of interactions between the Earth's and human systems.
The Club of Rome has persisted after The Limits of Growth and has generally provided comprehensive updates to the book on a 5-year basis.
Xavier Rogers
>who exactly benefits?
Al Gore made billions on climate change fear.
Basically, anyone who sells solutions to "CO2 pollution" or "green" "alternatives".
Just look at amount of subsidies "green" energy gets from all western governments. Subsidies are basically money that goes straight into (((someone's))) pocket just because there's enough fear of non-green energy.
Ayden Diaz
its simple
tell lies, get paid, the scientists are the ones benefiting most
imagine if some minor lesbian dance crisis came up? you think the 100,000 faggots with lesbian dance therapy degrees would fix it then go back to being unemployed? or would they milk the shit out of it, exaggerate it out of all earthly bounds, and ride the gravy train straight into the abyss
the illuminati or whoever like it too becuse carbon taxes hurt small business hard, meaning less competition, and more people using their big ol corporate chain stores
Julian Russell
Thank you for Correcting The Scientific Record.