Flat Earth

submitted by Bearcat22 from self.ClimateSkeptics

Whether or not you believe that pollution contributes to climate change, it's difficult to avoid facing up to the fact that droughts, fires, storms, floods and similar problems are on the rise. If you don't like the proposals to reduce greenhouse emissions, fine. But I'm not hearing any practical alternatives to cope with this evident issue. When there is a LOT of money behind industries that pollute, you gotta be at least a little skeptical.
Side note: it's a amusing to observe that when strong regulations reduced coal plant emissions, the particles those plants used to put up in the atmosphere declined. They had been reflecting sunlight. Reducing the particles actually raised global temperatures. My point? I don't have much trust in either side of this debate.

all 2 comments
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

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

Why the title?
It is good to be skeptical of both sides.
And look at the evidence from both sides.

But based on the available unmodified data the oil-industry is causing pollution and not any "global warming".
We can also see that the data is modified to create an illusion of global warming.
Most climate realists / climate skeptics are pointing out the modifications of this data.
After the well known climate-fraud scandal, all people that were protesting were fired and censored.
While the people that committed the frauds were kept in control.

We can see a similar take over of control by frauds in the medicine industry.

But why?
The global elite have based their wealth on dollars (central banks), oil and war.
Now the oil is slowly getting less, they want to move to monopolize all energy.
They also want a monopoly on food and other resources.

These global elite also control all new media (Rothchilds = Reuters) and own most science publications.
Via the central banks and international trade, they also control most politicians.
So they can create the propaganda to make people believe that this transfer of resources is necessary.
That is why they use children and emotions, and not actual science (unless with fake graphs).

The vikings were living on Greenland, because it was green in their time.
If we look at long-term data, there is no global warming at all.
In the propaganda, the cause-effect relationship with CO2 is inverted.
We can see that CO2 is released from the oceans due to higher temperature.

[–]Bearcat22[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

If emissions are not causing the recent drastic rise in floods, wildfires, drought, ice cap melt, hurricanes, wildly fluctuating temperatures, "hottest year on record" summers, et. al. then what is your explanation? And, obviously, what is your proposed solution? If a "global elite" control media, how do you account for the fact that you can freely say so on the internet? If they are so powerful, how is it that YOU know so much about what "they want"? Precisely who are "they" and where is your conclusive objective PROOF? Suspicion isn't proof. I live less than a mile from a pizza restaurant here in DC. A man showed up with a machine gun, demanding that they let the kidnapped children out of the basement. Except....he discovered that building doesn't have a basement, and there were no kids, no "elite pedophile kidnapping ring". Are there wealthy and powerful pedophiles in the world? Probably. Also impoverished and unimportant pedophiles. So what? Confirmation bias is a powerful thing. Look at the movie "Chariots of the Gods" for evidence. If you would like to offer a practical alternative to the IMF, Federal Reserve, etc., fine. I doubt you could propose a better system or a method to transition.
The world is chaotic, and scapegoating a "conspiracy" is a lazy way of dealing with that. Again, what is your explanation for climate change in recent years, and how to deal with it?