I'd take it as your last part. I'm not American or a Trump supporter by any means but it is easy to see that the media is trying to tar him. Why?

Judging from Trump's long history as one of the scummiest human beings on the planet, it's probably because Trump is fucking up colossally to the point that even Fox News can't deny it.

scummy and incompetent person

That's an opinion. Do you have any substantive to add?

It's a fact that Trump (and Bill Clinton, for that matter) took multiple rides on Epstein's plane. It's a fact that Trump bragged about walking in on undressed underage girls. It's a fact that Trump regularly brags about how sexy his daughter is. It's a fact that he ran a scam university and had to settle a lawsuit over it. You may not agree that these are scummy things.

As for incompetent, his numerous bankruptcies and failed businesses, his inability to get any funding in America because he failed so many times, again the scam university, and his complete inability to get anything done as president all testify to his incompetence.

I agree that Trump is terrible, but again, these are mostly subjective statements that you're trying to pass as facts. Ex:

It's a fact that Trump regularly brags about how sexy his daughter is.

"Regularly," "brags," "sexy."'All subjective statements. In other words, it's your opinion.

As for being incompetent, he's president of the United States and by all indications he's had a successful career. Be careful of attribution bias.

Again, I'm not a fan of Trump but you make it easy to defend him

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-elections/donald-trump-ivanka-trump-creepiest-most-unsettling-comments-a-roundup-a7353876.html

Perhaps I should have been more explicit: Trump has bragged about his daughter's body on multiple occasions.

It's also funny that you completely ignore Trump's vacations with Epstein and Trump's bragging about walking in on underage girls to get pedantic about the exact number of times Trump has bragged about Ivanka's body.

Haha what're you arguing with me about? I don't think Trump is a good president. But you're also making terrible arguments and you're trying to pass you're opinion off as facts.

What's the point you're trying to make? In your opinion you think Trump is creepy? That's fine. Just say that.

I listed a set of facts and you responded with "That's just your opinion."

And yes, I explicitly said that I think Trump is scummy and listed a set of facts to back it up. Maybe English isn't your first language? What I said was very clear.

You listed a set of opinions then offered some factual information to support your opinion. I focused on one claim because I didn't feel like typing that much and I can tell you're just trying to argue.

In your opinion, Trump is "scummy." Got it. In my opinion, it's scummy to try to pass off opinions as facts. Got it?

Apparently you're fine with grown men walking in on undressed underage girls, and you think that it's scummy for anybody to point out that this is disgusting behavior.

That's what you got from this? Ok I think we're done here.

We could have been done the first time you misrepresented what I said. The fact that Trump publicly bragged about walking in on undressed, underaged girls is alone sufficient to call Trump a scummy human being, but somehow you took offense. Clearly you disagree with using that fact as the basis for an opinion on Trump's character.

You have no response, so yes, I'd say we're done here.

I took offense to you stating opinions as facts. How did I misrepresent you?

You think Trump is scummy. That's fine. I would probably describe him as indecent. I don't know him well enough to say he's "scummy."

But then again, a lot, if not most, politicians could be described as scummy. Im more concerned with his acumen as president, which seemingly has been lacking thus far.

You started this entire argument because you prefer "indecent and lacking in acumen" rather than "scummy and incompetent"? That's a laugh.

I commented because you were trying to pass off opinion as facts. That's the problem with you SJWs, you care more about feelings than what's real

Wow, you got really triggered when I pointed out the undeniable fact that Trump bragged about walking in on undressed teenage girls and also bragged about his daughter's body on multiple occasions.

Why do you respond this way? Do you also find yourself sexually attracted to young girls in an uncomfortable way? Do you defend all indecent old men, or just Trump? Why do you sow disinformation and discord in defense of the worst of Trump's behaviors (what some might call indefensible behaviors) while claiming to be a progressive?

Haha pointing out that you're an SJW ruffled you up a little huh? What's the word? Snowflake?

Removed, violation of rule 10, repeated violations will result in a ban from /r/conspiracy.

Can you elaborate please?

The very last sentence of your comment was what got the comment removed.

hm, thats interesting. I had never considered that an attack before

Well, its definitely got a negative connotation.

Rule 10: "No negative connotations"

I'm being snarky but it does feel like that's the way society is headed.

Generally speaking, I think the mods here do a great job.

I'm not even sure you realize the irony of your accusations given that a simple list of facts about your dear leader instigated you to defend Trump's undeniably creepy behavior towards young women in general and his daughter in particular. I do see that you've dropped any pretense of being anything other than a run-of-the-mill Trump supporter.

Im a progressive and a Bernie supporter. Can't blame me for our dear leader. What about you? Neoliberal social justice-y type?

How do you feel knowing that you helped elect someone you see as scummy?

It's telling that when you see somebody pointing out Trump's own comments about walking in on undressed teenage girls you accuse them of being a SJW. Your language and actions are consistent with a typical Trump supporter, but you still insist that you're a progressive Bernie supporter.

You're also just making things up again. In no way did I help elect Trump.

It's telling that when you see somebody pointing out Trump's own comments about walking in on undressed teenage girls you accuse them of being a SJW in order to defend Trump.

...

You're also just making things up again

In psych we call this projection. Your comment was directed at me but you were actually talking about yourself.

I guess some people are just more easily offended than others. Very sorry to offend you so easily by pointing out your propensity to pass off opinions as facts, which is typical of postmodern SJW types.

You're stringing words together, but they're incoherent. Once again, you got upset when I pointed out that Trump bragged about walking in on undressed teenage girls and also bragged about his young daughter's body. You say that these facts are opinions, because you have no problems with lying to defend Trump. When you get called out for your bullshit, you just deflect or outright lie. I don't know why you've decided that pointing out these facts makes one an SJW, but this is the sort of twisted reasoning you resort to in order to defend Trump.

You're an odd sort of progressive.

Are you trolling me? If so, how come?

You're projecting. You initiated this conversation, you blatantly lied, repeatedly, when referring to a list of facts as opinion, when your initial attacks failed you resorted to calling me an SJW for pointing out Trump's own words, now you're calling me a troll.

you blatantly lied, repeatedly, when referring to a list of facts as opinion, when your initial attacks failed you resorted to calling me an SJW

It's almost as if you're trying to convince yourself. You got outsmarted and you're seemingly fragile self-esteem is unable to handle it so you're lashing out and lying as a sort-of self defense mechanism.

How do you think that makes you look?

It's almost as if you're trying to convince yourself. Your trolling failed, your ad hominem failed, your twisted reasoning is transparent. How do you think it makes you look that you've spent all this effort defending Trump for bragging about walking in on undressed teenage girls? Of all the things that would make you decide to defend somebody, that's what does it for you?

Lol ok I'm bored of this. Im gonna find someone a little more intellectually/emotionally mature to converse with

That's cute coming from someone who repeatedly insists that facts are opinions and then resorts to ad hominem.

lol you're still going. This is getting cringey

It got cringey the instant you started defending Trump's comments.

https://www.google.com/search?q=trump+snowflake+tweet&rlz=1CDGOYI_enUS642US642&hl=en-US&prmd=niv&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjc4bGMvMDUAhWKFj4KHVb-BLgQ_AUICigC&biw=375&bih=591#hl=en-US&tbm=isch&q=best+trump+tweets&imgrc=CdkGyPWEY6mYPM:

Yeah, Trump's tweets are also full of cringe. That you'd use a tweet from the man with the best words points out how bankrupt your arguments are, bigly. "I have the highest IQ" is the sort of thing you expect to hear in middle school from kids with middling intelligence and a great deal of insecurity.

If you remove Trump it can almost sound like any politician... we need to stop electing shit people into any office. It's cancerous to our society how they run things. We really really are over due for a revolution, to get rid of this obvious pay to play system, but then again that's exactly what they want, and frankly the average American could not stand a chance against the weapons they have. Not only that, but if the American people break up, I believe a false prophet (someone claiming to get rid of the old ways and make things a lot better) will rise and destroy things even more.

We're all just guinea pigs.

What other politician could you fit into that statement?

Bush fucked us far worse and now the Media is trying to rehab his reputation.

It remains to be seen whether any of the Russian collusion story pans out or ends up discredited. I agree it will be hard to top the Iraq War in terms of disastrous consequences for both America and the world.

Because it makes good reality TV, my old and senile father is hooked on that shit. He, like a lot of Americans are completely brainwashed by the MSM propaganda.

Well since we are in a conspiracy subreddit I'll be the first to give an actual conspiracy theory based answer. These other "posters" seem to forget where they are.

The globalists who run the MSM want no part of a strong independent America, they want us to bow down to global interests at our own expense so they can tighten their grip on the world economy.

The deep state wants conflict with Russia in Syria and they want to ultimately overthrow Assad. Trump doesn't want that. Attacking him so concertedly serves to delegitimize him while also manufacturing public consent for conflict with Russia. You'll notice the only time the mainstream media praised Trump was when he bombed Syria; because that's what they want.

Saudi Arabia and Israel have Trump grabbed by the pussy, so this guy will be obedient to whatever they want to do next in Syria (hence the conflict across the ME is escalating).

Could it be that aside from the Deep State wanting Trump out, he is too fucking incompetent and full of himself to accomplish anything? could it be that a lot of the bad press is 100% self-inflicted (like the bullshit he tried to pull with Comey?).

he is too fucking incompetent and full of himself to accomplish anything?

That's your opinion?

SA and Israel have the US government by the balls, not just Trump.

True on both, but every other day I get validation on Trump. I was hopeful he could do good things for the economy, but then I realized that all his policies so far goose up the wealthy, and fuck over everyone else.

I realized that all his policies so far goose up the wealthy, and fuck over everyone else.

Yupp, but that's not just Trump; that's Dems and Reps too. So you understand why people were so fed up; and that's how he got elected.

Indeed. I knew he would win as soon as it came down to Trump vs Clinton. Unfortunately, America will have to wait for the next chance to get rid of oligarch puppets.

Tulsi 2020

Her or Nina Turner would be my current picks.

It's amazing how many users here these days know nothing about any conspiracies and only post against certain subject matter.

I post against FE and Climate Change denial because I see they two conspiracies are being used to try to manipulate us. It's the same accounts and same website / shitty videos. I understand skepticism but these two 'conspiracies' are pushing us the wrong way (and I believe it is on purpose) so all we can do is push against these obviously fake conspiracies and not give them the time of day. The funny thing about the two conspiracies is that they try to use what all other conspiracies use (don't trust x, y and z) while arguing against facts with hyperbole comments and not taking EVERYTHING into consideration, they only consider what fits with their 'theory.' As I've said, feels purposely constructed to discredit conspiracy theorists.

Lol. Climate change "denial".

Climate change is an unproven theory put forward by the NWO to extract a global carbon tax, enforcement and control over production.

So, being against these things is "pushing us the wrong way"?

The Rockefellers gave Revelle a job, gave Maurice Strong a job, fund CAN (Climate Action Network).

I'm sorry if you have been mislead, and lead onto a path to deceive others, but climate change is the NWO.

You believe that humans burning fuels and farming animals has no effect on the atmosphere. That's all that needs to be said about that.

Is the debate over?

Lol.

"I post about the position the PTB are pushing, that makes me a conspiracy theorist". Good one.

It will be once the world totally fucks up : )

• Fewer extreme weather events

• sea level rise unchanged

• cooling from the 50s to the 70s, warming, no warming since 98

• no "hot spot", the only direct evidence of manmade global warming and it doesn't exist

• ocean "acidification", except there isn't enough carbon on the planet to make the ocean acidic

• thorium, a means of nearly completely eliminating CO2 emissions, ignored by the alarmists

• CIA, all Bilderbeg attendees, CFR, Tri-lateral Commission all push manmade climate change

• IPCC created by a Rockefeller rent-boy, with the role of finding "human's influence on the climate"

• Big oil calling for climate tax (the idea that big oil would be against restricting output and increasing their profits is just a sign of lack of basic economic understanding)

• Utterly one-sided funded, media coverage, awards based on faked graphs, faked studies and faked claims

Hmm...

Hmm, it's as though you have all that info handy that supports your cause (even then, some of the info is completely fabricated lol)

You know, just judging from how this has gone down, I'm more inclined to go with the guy above you. Why are you so quick to dismiss? It seems as though you pretended at having "better" information than him, yet when presented with reasonable claims, you are dismissive. That's a good way to further entrench those on either side, but for people like me who don't know but are curious, you're not exactly making me want to come over to your team.

I'm not aiming to get people to believe me. Makes you wonder about those that do try to get people to believe them. If you want to believe that humans don't have an impact on the environment then that is up to you (and they have won.) Always keep an open mind and know what you believe to be the real facts. Don't believe in false facts like what the poster above has displayed. I'm not for engaging with people like that, that want you to argue against fake facts. If you want to believe it, I'm not going to stop you. Just remember that ignoring our impact on the environment is dangerous thinking and we should be doing all we can to keep everything as neutral as possible.

Just remember that ignoring our impact on the environment is dangerous thinking and we should be doing all we can to keep everything as neutral as possible.

So is closing yourself off to the idea that it is fabricated! :D But yes, it is good to be good to your surroundings. I have a smart car because I'm poor but I still want to lessen my impact, not to mention my own garden, and hopefully some chickens, soon. Am I certain that some shadowy group is poisoning my food and destroying the world with carbon emissions? Nah. Do I try to do my best in a world of uncertainty? Yeah.

I find it very difficult to believe climate change has been fabricated. Everything that happens on Earth has a consequence. Throwing one rock into a river changes it's flow ever so slightly. The same happens with the atmosphere. The fact that climate change denial is being posted everyday with the same fake sources tells me that TPTB want us to think climate change is a hoax. It's their agenda atm to try to stop people being self sufficient.

Everything that happens on Earth has a consequence.

Man I don't know if this is breaking the rules but you are so close. Imagine the procession of cause and effect not as a line, but not as a circle either.

Climate change is real, but it's up for debate whether humans have had a huge impact on it or not, and whether our current technology is capable of preventing it. It's also up for debate as to how much of an impact it will have on us in the near future, and how that will change depending on our actions.

This is a very emotionally-held issue for a lot of people because we've been indoctrinated from a young age with Captain Planet and the recycling movement and a large amount of propaganda. The genius is that nobody can argue AGAINST recycling and reducing waste because its obviously a good practice, so it's hard to fight environmental regulations, even unfair/unnecessary ones. And regulations are always used as a way to control industries and allow for more corruption, so there's the economic incentive for the people with power to push the idea that man is largely responsible for climate change.

Dingdingdingdingding

This is the best answer right here. Listen to u/dantepicante, he speaks the truth

Climate change is real, but it's up for debate whether humans have had a huge impact on it or not,

So what's the debate?

And regulations are always used as a way to control industries and allow for more corruption

Wat. How do regulations allow for more corruption? Regulations make sure there isn't any oil in your drinking water. Regulations take away corruption from the big oil/nuclear power/fracking etc.

Some people believe the data can be interpreted as incontrovertible proof that climate change is primarily man-made, whereas skeptics believe the data allows for many different scenarios in which man has varying degrees of impact.

If our system were free of corruption, then regulations would be great. But I think everyone can agree on the fact that our system is not free of corruption, and the lobbying industry is proof enough of that. Because of these lobbyists, any regulations that are enacted tend to benefit the people with the most wealth/power, not the common man. In order to get the common man behind such regulations, they base them on issues that are hard to argue against, climate change being but one example.

skeptics believe the data allows for many different scenarios in which man has varying degrees of impact.

Like what?

Because of these lobbyists, any regulations that are enacted tend to benefit the people with the most wealth/power, not the common man.

So what pro-environment regulations have been pushed that go against the belief of the "common man" and benefit the wealthy?

All I have ever seen is the big oil/food processing companies lobbying for less environmental regulations so they can do business in a way that is more damaging to our environment but more profitable.

The people with the most wealth/power benefit from being allowed to damage that environment than protect it, no?

The people with the most wealth/power benefit from being allowed to damage that environment than protect it, no?

That is the stereotype that has been ingrained in us for a long while, yes. And up until the past few years I made the exact same argument you are making, so I completely get where you're coming from. The thing about regulations is this: in a corrupt system, they only serve to benefit the corrupt.

So what pro-environment regulations have been pushed that go against the belief of the "common man" and benefit the wealthy?

You're not understanding me. I'm not saying the regulations are to the detriment of the common man - I'm sure many of them are helpful to a certain degree - but rather that they are used to give advantages to the folks who have manipulated their way to the top. Mo' regulations - mo' problems.

Most scientists believe that the climate would be changing whether humans were here or not, and again, the argument is based on how much of an impact we actually have, but the "save the planet!" issue has a lot of power to garner public support for regulations. Because of this power, and the fact that those in charge want us to hate ourselves and each other, they've made it a social necessity to believe climate change is our fault and we have to take responsibility for it with government intervention.

but the "save the planet!" issue has a lot of power to garner public support for regulations.

So what do you think is the real, secret purpose accomplished by these regulations?

Most scientists believe that the climate would be changing whether humans were here or not

I do not think that is true.

So what do you think is the real, secret purpose accomplished by these pro-environment regulations?

I literally just explained it to you. Let's look at the Paris agreement, for example - it would have heavily regulated the US whereas China would be largely unaffected. The issue is just being used as a tool to consolidate/control power, and is about a lot more than saving the planet.

I do not think that is true.

The climate has changed many, many times over the course of the Earth's history, and would continue to do so whether humans were around or not - feel free to ask /r/science if you don't believe me.

Let's look at the Paris agreement, for example - it would have heavily regulated the US whereas China would be largely unaffected. The issue is just being used as a tool to consolidate/control power, and is about a lot more than "saving the planet".

This is not true. The Paris agreement gave each state an independent control of it's own climate commitments. From what I understand, the pact isn't binding much at all and countries can do whatever they want.

The climate has changed many, many times over the course of the Earth's history, and would continue to do so whether humans were around or not - feel free to ask /r/science if you don't believe me.

My fault, I misinterpreted your point. It seemed like you were using that point to make the claim that most scientists are divided on the fact that humans have drastically affected and increased the rate of climate change.

Here's an atmospheric physicist who taught at MIT for 30 years explaining the situation, I think it'll answer your questions.

I'm sorry, but I don't think that video isn't true to the facts or the science.

First off, I googled Richard Lindzen and as a fellow r/conspiracy browser, I'm sure you'll enjoy this: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/jun/13/peabody-energy-coal-mining-climate-change-denial-funding

Contrarian scientists such as Richard Lindzen and Willie Soon also feature on the bankruptcy list.

But like, come on man, at :20 in the video, there's a graph titled "climate change over time" and it's from 1997 to 2016 as if that's an accurate range of measurement. But that graph also actually shows an upward trend in the last three or four years anyways but whatever.

The channel this video on has other videos with titles such as "Why the Right is Right."

This is a dispute fabricated by big oil money and lobbyists to try and override scientific consensus.

https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

If you're so skeptical of scientific consensus, please tell me where else in science you apply this skepticism?

As a fellow /r/conspiracy browser, I'm sure you're aware of how astroturfing and propaganda work. I'm sure you know that it is designed to work on the majority of people, not the minority, and influences what information google pushes to the top.

My video clearly addressed issue (elevated CO2 is not the only nor the biggest factor contributing to climate change) that your nasa evidence shows.

I hear you, man but let me just say this.

I didn't even get that article from Google. It was a tiny couple of sentences on the guys Wikipedia buried under loads of his actual accomplishments.

So what do you think is the real, secret purpose accomplished by these pro-environment regulations?

Control more property, there's a lot of money in real estate.

But it doesn't even need to be a secret though. There are untapped industries in renewable energy that are objectively less harmful to the environment than fossil fuels.

Name one. I bet you it depends on "fossil" fuels and some other form of pollution to manufacture, for some impractical low energy density novelty item that can run a light bulb or two.

Key words: less harmful.

I never said these industries were entirely independent of any fossil fuels. I believe they can be with proper investments in research and development thought.

But hey, that's the attitude. It's shit technology so why bother, it can only run "a lightbulb or two." Meanwhile, over 1 million homes in the US have solar panels. The technology actually exists and you've got to ask yourself why you don't hear about it more.

Regulations also overburden start ups and prevent competition for established players, maintaining monopolies. It's a double edge sword, and more regulations isn't always better.

I'm talking specifically in regard to environmental regulations, not all regulations.

Why are you so quick to dismiss?

Why are you so quick to support given he didn't like to a single piece of evidence, not a single one.

I mean he did, and other bro didn't. What are you seeing?

Headlines aren't evidence.

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/evidence

haha you changed your post after you realized you done goofed. Thanks. That's better than you saying "yeah, my bad". lol

I'm more inclined to go with the guy above you

I'm more inclined to support scientific research instead of some random redditor that doesn't even provide sources.

As am I :D

I post against ... Climate Change denial

.

it's as though you have all that info handy that supports your cause

User has no info. So, do you only post ad-hominem attacks and unsupported talking points with no support?

Most of your 'info' is false and fabricated to fit the 'climate change hoax' agenda.

There is extreme weather... Sea levels have risen... Heat records are being broken world wide (last year or the year before...)

Mostly fake info to push the climate change hoax narrative, mixed in with TPTB type shit to get people to be led along easier. Manipulation.

There is extreme weather... Sea levels have risen... Heat records are being broken...

No one said there isn't extreme weather, sea levels haven't risen or that heat records haven't been broken. What I said was:

• Fewer extreme weather events
• sea level rise unchanged
• cooling from the 50s to the 70s, warming, no warming since 98

Straight-up strawmen: "manipulation".

The information is false... Sea levels have risen... Warmest record in Britain was broken in 2003 (and will be broken again soon.)

Your posts seem very manipulative so you can call it a strawman all you want. I explained as best as I could on my previous post.

Local temperature records have very little to do with global climate. Britain having its hottest record neither supports nor discredits your position.

It's one point. OP is making out that temperature hasn't risen since 1998 which is totally false or Britain's temperature wouldn't have risen 5 years later.

Sea levels have been rising for millennia.

My province, 2013 coldest winter on record.

And this year we're on route to having the coldest in decades.

More unsupported claims.

Just like theirs ; )

So if no one really knows, who's the scam artist the one that's pretending to know better and trying their hardest to convince others? Or the ones that call for more investigation to get a better understanding of the situation?

It's very basic maths and science. If Earth naturally creates x, humans add in y then you are going to get the total, z. X + Y = Z. We are adding into an already ongoing process and it can't be good or helpful.

You're trying to make something you do not understand at all into a simplistic and wrong equation.

The worst liars are the ones that tell just enough truth to cover up their bullshit foundation. You're like a used car salesman.

It is fairly simplistic. If something is not there or at x a level, and you start adding more, how much is there in total? It's that simple...

It's not that simple because chemical reactions happen constantly, CO2 levels are not constant. That makes it nearly impossible to accurately gauge the exact impact human activities have.

It's simple to see that we do add into the overall effect. How much, is difficult to determine but I would be very surprised if it was a very little amount.

You're going to be extremely surprised then.

Ditto : )

Everyone is being deluded huh?

Good thing you're here then.

What a total load of bullshit.

cooling from the 50s to the 70s, warming, no warming since 98

THE 15 HOTTEST YEARS ON RECORD HAVE COME IN THE LAST 16 YEARS

Tell the satellites.

Yeah, I'm going to believe NASA over the unsourced image you posted from a skeezy looking website.

Alarmist nonsense.

He asked if the debate was over. My answer was that it will be once the world fucks up. Not being alarmist, just being truthful, that the debate will end when we all die (from one way or another lol)

You're going to die regardless, your children will die regardless, no one is escaping that fate. We're not doing anything to the world, the world was here before we were, and it'll be here after.

So the debate will be over when people die. That's all my statement was about.

the world was here before we were, and it'll be here after.

Just, you know, inhabitable by people (but let's be honest that's a good thing). Bro every year the global avg temp is hotter than the last, documented fact.

It's not a fact. And carbon tax will never produce the intended goal of reducing global average temperatures by 2 degrees.

The world won't fuck up, we will just die.

The world is a lot more resilient than us.

Very true. Earth should be a resilient bitch, unless we create a black hole or some shit... I was meaning world in the 'world stage' type idea. Once shit happens, whatever it is... We are all fucked anyway... So the debate would be over, once and for all.

A lot more is fucked up besides some extra CO2. So fixing CO2 by taxing what little money I have left might be a win for the planet, but it'll be hell for me.

Which PTB, though? Because half of them are super against AGW (oil, coal, military industrial lobbies, heavy industry, etc)

You're lying to yourself if you think TPTB have a unified position on global climate change.

Hillary, while Secretary of State, said she gets her foreign policy from the CFR, which is the propaganda think tank for the MIC.

https://www.cfr.org/climate-change/crisis-guide-climate-change/p17088

CFR, a Rockefeller group, promotes climate change.

The pentagon and US armed forces support climate change.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/05/31/politics/trump-paris-climate-decision-pentagon/index.html

Big oil supports climate change:

http://www.shell.com/media/news-and-media-releases/2015/oil-and-gas-majors-call-for-carbon-pricing.html

The PTB run by the Rockefellers, Rothschilds and their various entities, such as Bilderberg, Tri-lateral Commission, UN.

A Rothschild was a keynote speaker at Copenhagen, the IPCC was set up by a Rockefeller.

I don't know what other PTB you believe in.

The Catholic Church supports climate change.

well i don't believe that the rockefellers and rothschilds are secretly contorlling the world, so i guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.

That's all that needs to be said about that.

Plain English translation: I've been convinced and you should think the same way I do because I've been convinced.

Every action has an opposite and equal reaction.

Pulling up compressed minerals in the earth and burning them releases excess gases. It's that simple.

Then why all the made up nonsense and scare tactics propagated through useful idiots? In other words, why lie? Now no one believes you.

You see, no one ever said that burning carbon doesn't release excess gases. It's just that some people lied to say that those excess gases were going to end snowfall forever and other similar garbage. Now people don't want to believe anything the zealots say. Listening to youu, falling for your 'advice,' at this point, would be like supporting a black man for president in 2020 because he's promising Hope and Change.

No one believes you.

Aka I dont believe in Global Warming because Al Gore was wrong.

Excess gas? Nobody is that fucking retarded...you are either trolling or just poorly educated....both?

I'm the poorly educated one for knowing that combustion of oil gives off energy and gas? Thought that was simple science, like all chemical reactions...

'excess gas'. /cringe

Maybe tax a basic science class before you embarrass yourself further.

Eh I already have... explain where I am wrong on burning fossil fuels releases gas.

Yeah, let's all educate you... It's easier just to laugh at you. Excess gas...rofl

The gas isn't there since it needs the reaction to be released. Once the reaction happens the gas is released therefore it is excess since it wasn't released in the atmosphere until the reaction occured. I did learn it 15 years ago but it's that simple. If you have a better explanation I would like to hear it.

Excess gas...lol

Dumb fuck... lol

Don't be so hard on yourself.

Removed, violation of rule 10, repeated violations will result in a ban from /r/conspiracy.

I wasn't calling him a fucking retard. I clearly stated that nobody could be that fucking retarded. I've been called much worse in this sub without any mod interference... arbitrary moderation is worse than no moderation at all.

How much effect though?

Total climate - Natural climate = Human made climate

It's a difficult thing to work out the exact answer but we are certainly affecting the atmosphere with our daily fossil fuel usage and other factors.

So humans are not natural?

Nope. Humans were created.

Volcanoes add 400x as much emissions as all humanity combined. Natural processes add more than all humanity combined, the problem is one of concentration, building chemical factories and shit like that while you're surrounded by mountains is just stupid human planning, but it's not going to pollute the world just that region.

Even more reason to reduce what we are doing.

Yeah good luck with that, we're completely and utterly dependent on petroleum. And average people aren't the problem, your chain smoking ass isn't the problem. Greed is the problem, the tax won't do shit, and it was never intended to stop pollution, it's just a clever way to steal more money from people.

You think that faggot Al Gore gives 3 shits about the environment when he burns 50,000 liters of fuel every time he takes his private jet? If the people proposing this carbon tax don't believe their own bullshit why should we?

I know we are dependent, even more reason why this fake shit that supports fossil fuel usage has to stop. I understand people are pissed about yet another tax but it is one I actually agree with.

Do you stand to make money off the carbon tax because that's the only realistic way you could agree with it.

I wish... so no, I don't. I just agree that we should be taxed on things that have an effect on society.

You mean pay tribute.

something "having an effect" on something tells us absolutely nothing about whether it is good, bad, neutral, etc. natural systems tend to change over time, hovering about an equilibrium state, swinging back and forth.

We shouldn't be adding into an ongoing process, or we should at least majorly reduce what we are putting into the process.

If it was so important, why do the countries pushing against climate change don't actually do anything?

On one side we have people saying how terrible anthropogenic climate change, but the same people does not even try to push for a change. Empty words every 2-3-4-5 years it's barely better that climate change denial.

Lots of countries are changing to renewable energy.

Of course, even the US, but not because of climate change propaganda, but because it's just better and cheaper.

And the change has been slow. If the world actually followed the alarmists the change would have been in a few years instead of decades.

China only started using renewable because of the UN saying about climate change which is why Trump pulled out of the Paris Agreement (because China wasn't paying as much in and could afford to switch over and invest.)

Do you really believe that? China is increasing their energy production overall, that includes coal. Not just renewables at the expense of more polluting sources.

China started using and investing in renewables because it's good for their economy, not because the UN said so.

China wasn't paying as much is a massive understatement.

burning fuels and farming animals has no effect on the atmosphere

You're either obtuse or ignorant. I'll assume ignorance. 99.99% of people who the MSM label as "climate deniers" fully acknowledge that the climate is changing and that humans are having an effect. You're arguing a straw-man. A carefully engineered and effective straw-man, evidently.

The issue is about the forged "consensus", the obvious use of propaganda and scare tactics, the weaponization of science and the estimated 37 TRILLION dollars we need to transfer from public to private hands.

I know for a fact that it's hotter now then when I was a kid because there is no longer ice on the bays where I live. I'm sure that human co2 emissions have an effect.

This is about the transfer of wealth, not the environment.

estimated 37 TRILLION dollars

Link to said evidence if you don't mind.

Can't find that one. But here's MIT asserting it'll cost $44Trillion just to switch from fossil fuels

And NAT GEO claims $90 Trillion just in infrastructure Here.

If you google, it will provide. The point is massive transfer of wealth. But that's always the point.

Can't find that one

If you google, it will provide.

I believe you have just demonstrated that it will not.

BTW you might want to read the articles you linked.

Of the $6 trillion we will spend a year on infrastructure, only a small amount—around $270 billion per year—is needed to accelerate the shift to a low-carbon economy, through clean energy, public transport systems and smarter land use,”

Switching from fossil fuels to low-carbon sources of energy will cost $44 trillion between now and 2050, according to a report released this week by the International Energy Agency. That sounds like a lot of money, but the report also concludes that the switch to low-carbon technologies such as solar power—together with anticipated improvements in efficiency—will bring huge savings from reduced fossil-fuel consumption. As a result, the world actually comes out slightly ahead: the costs of switching will be paid for in fuel savings between now and 2050.

As a result, the world actually comes out slightly ahead:

Lol. I rest my case. Spend spend spend, it'll all work out. Believe us.

I was supporting my assertion that vast sums of wealth need to move. Nice slide though.

I was supporting my assertion that vast sums of wealth need to move. Nice slide though.

How is quoting the sources you linked to sliding?

No, that's not all that needs to be said about the subject.

Let's actually talk about the entire media campaign, Al Gore, and why every car company is trying to cheat the emissions test.

Let's talk about failing infrastructure, whilst trying to push greener technology at double the price.

If they were attempting to deal with climate change, they could manage making it affordable for the common man. It's a simple as that, especially if it is a matter of life or death.

There is a whole heck of a lot to be said about "that".

I agree that it should be cheaper for people. Once energy companies start using other sources of energy, it should hopefully be cheaper.

Lol. Climate change "denial".

Yep, we got a climate change truther here...

Oh riiight, those thousands of research papers on the subject are fake. You can literally fly to Antarctica and watch fake parts of shelf fall into the fake ocean. You can go to Bangladesh and watch actors and fake families pretend to move inland because the fake rising tide took over their homes.

Its all a hologram

Except none of those papers provide evidence that CO2 is causing any actual changes in global temperature.

The ice in Antartica is increasing. It's not as impressive to watch grow as it is to break off.

Bangladesh has had the same issue for centuries. I live on the highest tides in the world and we have had no problems.

Read the other comment i sent you. I can provide more research papers if you want to have this discussion.

I don't see another comment. What I did see was 40 + papers written to explain the "pause" (the lack of warming over the last few decades) that NOAA wrote a paper about that said it wasn't true.

The only problem... the man appointed by Obama to ensure scientific integrity blew the whistle on it. It didn't adhere to scientific standards...

As for suffering, my province suffered in 2013 and 2015, both record breaking cold winters, but we were unprepared because Canada's top climate guy told us they would be "mild" and as such we suffered increased house fires, energy outages and huge deficits.

Cna you provide sources for those claims?

You haven't but you want me to?

I don't do double standards.

Lol i literally just sent you a long post with sources on another thread.

It's shadow banned. You must have used a link that tripped the shadow ban.

I see that you tried to send another comment, but again it is shadow-banned. This means you are using a source deemed unreliable by reddit or r/conspiracy.

Perhaps you should look for other sources.

All of my sources are research papers and pdfs.

Not me, it's reddit or r/conspiracy.

Im gonna send you these one by one. RIP your inbox

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10712-011-9119-1

http://c3headlines.typepad.com/.a/6a010536b58035970c013488e4bf93970c-pi

http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aa6825

https://static.skepticalscience.com/images/Milankovitch_Cycles_400000.gif

https://academic.oup.com/icesjms/article/65/3/414/789605/Impacts-of-ocean-acidification-on-marine-fauna-and

http://jennifermarohasy.com/2008/10/not-enough-co2-to-make-oceans-acidic-a-note-from-professor-plimer/

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10712-011-9119-1

Research on rising sea levels in Bangladesh

https://judithcurry.com/2013/10/07/bangladesh-sea-level-rise/

http://globalnews.ca/news/2249376/bay-of-fundy-experiencing-highest-tides-in-decades/

This correlates with what I am saying. "Highest tides in decades" is evidence of sea level rise. The tides would not be rising if the sea level was static.

Except, that is entirely untrue, if you had read the article, it was due to the moon.

Research on antarctic ice shelf loss

http://science.sciencemag.org/content/348/6232/327

https://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/antarctic-sea-ice-reaches-new-record-maximum

Oct. 7, 2014

2014, a terrible year. We had power outages, lawsuits from snow removal companies, house fires, all because the head climate change guy said it would be "mild".

Terrible consequences after a population of 1m spent billions becoming "clean".

Global climate change does not equal local weather.

You want some guy "head climate change guy" to predict the weather patterns for the globe for a YEAR then complain when he gets it wrong? And complain that it was WORSE than he "predicted"? But you don't think there's any problems..

It's all us over spending on solutions, that's causing the problems?

Global climate change does not equal local weather.

But each storm and drought his.

And complain that it was WORSE than he "predicted"

Opposite to what he predicted 3 out of 4 years.

It's all us over spending on solutions, that's causing the problems?

The one's I mentioned.

So sea ice is defined as the ice on the surface of the ocean. From the article:

A warming climate changes weather patterns, said Walt Meier, a research scientist at Goddard. Sometimes those weather patterns will bring cooler air to some areas. And in the Antarctic, where sea ice circles the continent and covers such a large area, it doesn’t take that much additional ice extent to set a new record. “Part of it is just the geography and geometry. With no northern barrier around the whole perimeter of the ice, the ice can easily expand if conditions are favorable,” he said.

The article also states that sea ice in the arctic has been losing 20,800 square miles of ice since 1979 while the antarctic has been gaining 7,300 square miles of ice. That means the Earth has been losing an average of 13,500 square miles of sea ice a year since 1979. This is pretty solid evidence of global climate change, refuting your claim.

http://www.ametsoc.net/eee/2015/2015_bams_eee_low_res.pdf

https://wattsupwiththat.com/reference-pages/climatic-phenomena-pages/extreme-weather-page/

And i sent you a comment on another thread. Look at that one because i provide sources and research as counter points to your arguments

This 1000%

We should be protecting our natural habitats and creating more natural preserves instead of wasting our time and money on useless and costly CO2 regulation.

One of the biggest threats for animals right now is habitat loss, driven largely by global warming. You can't just stop habitat loss with money. If we continue our current consumptive path, more species of animals (sensitive to change, like amphibians) will go extinct. This is already happening.

Also, the developing world is trying somewhat to limit emissions. Places like Costa Rica are even ahead of the developed world. China is building green cities and India just invested in some 4 solar energy plants. Also, money from the Paris agreement goes to the Green Climate Fund which funds projects that help millions of people in these countries, while also promoting more environmentally conscious actions.

Saying we shouldn't even try to stop global warming because of the developing world is just a cop out, based off feelings and not evidence.

One of the biggest threats for animals right now is habitat loss, driven largely by global warming.

It's not driven by global fucking warming, it's driven by human development encroaching into natural habitat. That is the biggest problem facing species diversity - being crowded out by human habitation.

You people will literally say any problem is global warming. More hurricanes? Global Warming. Fewer hurricanes? Global warming. Hot temps? Global Warming. Cool temps? Global warming. To the true believer, Global Warming^TM is the cause of literally every environmental problem.

China is building green cities and India just invested in some 4 solar energy plants.

Oh wow, it's fucking nothing. China builds a new coal power plant every week. China has some of the worst air pollution in the history of mankind right now in its largest cities, and guess what? Speaking of China, some of the most critically endangered plants animals on the planet are going extinct because of the "medicinal" practices in China. It has very very little to do with CO2. Oh but, hey, they're building Green^TM Cities!!! We can subsidize their energy development by supplying them with Solar Panels from our Green Climate Fund^TM courtesy of the US taxpayer!! And feel good about ourselves for "helping" =]] =]]

You might want to get your blood pressure checked. Or do you hate everything that involves science and isn't rooted in opinion?

I notice when you changed tactics you stopped responding to the argument and started responding to the framing of the argument.

Or that I cant take a discussion with you seriously when you come across as an angry manchild. Waste of our time.

"Global warming is the main cause of loss of habitat"

expects to be taken seriously

Hmm.

You cant even quote properly dude.

Lets just agree to disagree

an unproven theory

Those last two words tell us that you don't know what a scientific theory actually is.

A theory without falsification is by definition pseudoscience. As, such, there was never a valid theory to begin with.

A theory without falsification is by definition pseudoscience. As, such, there was never a valid theory to begin with.

Which has what to do with "proving" a theory?

It's not a theory without falsification. Falsification means the theory has a possibility to be proven wrong.

http://staff.washington.edu/lynnhank/Popper-1.pdf

https://www.corbettreport.com/climate-change-is-unfaslifiable-woo-woo-pseudoscience/

It's not a theory without falsification. Falsification means the theory has a possibility to be proven wrong.

Which isn't the same as proving a theory. How about you try admiring that which have discovered, that one doesn't prove theories?

Lol. It's not even proven to be a theory. And you are still here acknowledging that you are debating over a pseudoscience.

If you study the way bees make honey, suddenly all the oil/climate conspiracies make a bit more sense. I don't want to ruin the journey to be had in answering that statement, because it's how it was delivered to me, by a man who taught me that some answers are meaningless unless the person asking answers the questions themselves.

I don't understand. Pollen attaches to a bee and they take it back to their hive and 'pack' it into the holes (I don't know the next process) time passes, honey.

I know! Quite the pickle.

I know we're eating bee puke. Yummy!

The only thing we know for sure about climate is that it changes. The only thing I know for sure is that a carbon tax is not the solution.

You do realise that EVERYTHING is taxed? Things that are more harmful to yourself or others is taxed high to try to reduce people doing it. A carbon tax is a good thing to try to push people away from using fossil fuels and use some other sort of renewable energy (which again, will be taxed.)

Things that are more harmful to yourself or others is taxed high to try to reduce people doing it.

I see, you believe it is your moral obligation to see others punished for their perceived 'sins.' As an aside, people like yourself are the very worst holy rollers alive. Worse than my dying grandparents friends when they meet up in Branson.

I smoke tobacco and have to pay more since it affects not only my health but others around me so it knocks onto the health service (which the excess tax on tobacco goes to.) Why is it a bad thing to say to car drivers that since they are putting out fumes, they should be taxed more?

I don't believe that things should be taxed (in fact I don't believe that currency should exist at all...) but it's the only way for the people to put back into society of which they have been doing wrong. I don't see much wrong with taxing people on their lifestyle.

Currency is a "tool." It's the oldest technology on Earth. If you want to fix currency to actually work for the people, outlaw interest.

Your beloved tax isn't going to stop any industrial pollution, it's just another way for banks to make money out of thin air, literally. They want to make money collecting commission for trading carbon taxes and offsets, but all of it is based on lies. They're lies because there's no proof, no strong evidence, and assuming that circumstantial evidence is true is the mark of ignorance.

lol Ok.

Lol, you think sin taxes help people...lolololololololol

Your smoking tax compared to poor people burning tires.

Apples and oranges

Some areas require vehicles and have shit public transportation, taking over 30 minutes of travel to a store. I'm all for a tax if you're down to fix infrastructure to help the ones who can't afford more taxes, or have the funds to buy the new greener technology.

Make it reasonable for society, then you won't be met with roadblocks.

I certainly agree (although certain cities were purposely built for cars etc, suggest moving away from places like that...)

I'm not talking about big cities. I'm talking about all the flyover states though.

These places are nowhere near wealthy enough to afford the technology required to limit their fossil fuel use.

Half of the people I know still use wood burning stoves in the winter instead of gas or electric because they are too expensive.

They would buy green tech if it was available and affordable.

Yup, it's almost like he believes in government like a religion. "Faith in government..." shudders

A house built on lies cannot stand.

What lies?

The lie that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, that renewable energy is clean, that a carbon tax will do anything to curb pollution from the biggest offenders. That burning things for energy is necessarily damaging to the environment.

Those lies.

Burning things is damaging to the environment... What lies are you trying to spread?

No it isn't things burn all the time, you can't have energy without burning things. Even wind depends on a burning ball of gas emitting radiation....

No heat energy no life.

Chemical reactions (burning) releases chemicals into the air that adds to the total amount already in the air. Therefore humans add extra chemicals by burning fossil fuels.

Yeah and chemical reactions also need to happen in order for you to remain alive, just like every other living thing. Also everything is a chemical, I don't think you've really thought this through, sounds to me like you're just regurgitating things you've been told.

We don't add anything, matter like energy cannot be created or destroyed.

We do add in chemicals into the atmosphere when burning things... If it's stored in an object (say a lump of coal) the gas isn't airborne till its burned.

I will not be lectured by someone who doesn't grasp basic thermodynamics. Get on my level then we can talk.

Lmao

Well considering I work on combustion at a CFD validation level I'd say I've picked up a thing or two.

Obviously not.

If only your words mattered over my colleagues and the people who write my checks, if only some words could challenge everything I've verified through experimentation, wouldn't that be something.

https://www.reddit.com/r/shittyama/comments/1q85s4/im_a_32_yr_old_short_chubby_balding_hairy_dude_ama/

/r/quityourbullshit

While not required, you are requested to use the NP (No Participation) domain of reddit when crossposting. This helps to protect both your account, and the accounts of other users, from administrative shadowbans. The NP domain can be accessed by replacing the "www" in your reddit link with "np".

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

Good find, who the fuck has ever said they work in combustion anyway? What does it even mean to work in combustion?

It's a word they saw in a few crackpot articles, and thought sounded authoritative about the subject. Just another LARPer.

Lot's can change in 3 years.

So in the past 3 years you got a degree and job in a field that you still clearly know nothing about?

I knew about it when I was doing CFD validations for NOAA, and I learned even more when I did validations for the pharmaceutical industry.

Yeah lots changes in 4 years, you still didn't have pubes.

More lies.

Denial is unhealthy.

And with your psychology degree, you're qualified to say as much, unlike climate science.

And in computer science.

You have a degree in psychology and computer science. Fuck off you piece of shit.

Your point? Do you even know what I do for a living?

Away and use yer psychology degree elsewhere.

What is your objective?

We don't add anything, matter like energy cannot be created or destroyed.

It's not about creation or destruction, nor is it about whether everything is or isn't a chemical, it's about change. In burning fossil fuels we generate a chemical reaction that would not have otherwise happened - that's how we create energy. The cumulative effect of lots of these reactions causes additional changes in the natural world - an increase in the quantity of CO2 and other gases. This accumulation has a set of properties that causes further change - it traps heat and warms the planet.

Your ass produces the only hazardous gas in your life.

Comedy gold

Yeah!

http://paradigmsanddemographics.blogspot.mx/2009/04/basic-science-of-carbon.html

What kind of sub is this? a conspiracy sub trusting "govt." based solutions? Are there any skeptics left on this sub??

I don't trust the government because I understand how and why taxes work...

Then why are you pushing for another new tax (carbon tax) which is clearly propagated by NWO/Bilderberg/EU/Globalist powers to enrich the pockets of the wealthy corporations?

If people want to us fossil fuels needlessly then they should be taxed more. Fossil fuels take a long time to replenish. We should be using renewables more and saving the fossil fuels for emergencies.

Who are you to decide who should be taxed and who should not? Do you have any idea what happens to somebody if they refuse to pay taxes? This is a tyranny-of-the-majority mindset, which is why our government has gone to shit. You do not have the right to force people to your will.

It's not me that is deciding... I agree with it, only because it should hopefully increase the movement of people moving away from a fossil fuel onto a 'cleaner' and more 'environmentally safe' renewable fuel source.

thats right.. put faith in your rulers.. keep milking the genuine govt. tit of feelsgoodman

NONE OF THEM ARE CLEAN!!!!!! Nuclear is the cleanest as well as practical alternative fuel source, let that sink in.

NONE OF THEM ARE CLEAN!!!!!!

Well that's just not true.

It is true, not a single alternative technology is clean in the sense that it allows life to flourish. Producing the technology involves more pollution than you can imagine, but you can keep living your pipe dream.

Again, just not true.

Again you don't know what you're talking about.

If irony were a currency, I'd be rich.

Substitute ignorance for irony and I'd be right there with you.

Oh, I didn't even realize this was you in this thread as well.

https://www.reddit.com/r/shittyama/comments/1q85s4/im_a_32_yr_old_short_chubby_balding_hairy_dude_ama/

While not required, you are requested to use the NP (No Participation) domain of reddit when crossposting. This helps to protect both your account, and the accounts of other users, from administrative shadowbans. The NP domain can be accessed by replacing the "www" in your reddit link with "np".

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

3 years ago... Lol ok.

So in three years you got a new degree and a job in a field that you still don't know anything about?

Wind, solar, tidal, geothermal.

All take oil to manufacture, geothermal is vaporware, I know a lot of people that lost a lot of money investing in it. Manufacturing solar panels doesn't leave flowers behind, and has piddling energy density, wind is impractical, and manufacturing pollutes as does maintenance.

Sorry kid you're living a pipe dream.

Europe and China seems to be doing well harnessing it so get tae... and go use yer psychology degree elsewhere. You are a lying sack of shit and is purposely being manipulative and deceiving. Fuck off.

Lol 4 years ago, things change, you still couldn't drive 4 years ago.

Fuck off you propoganda spewing pig.

I'm spewing propaganda, what the fuck have you been doing?

You are, retarded, the videogames and cigarettes have taken their toll, denying reality is not going to change it, it's just going to hurt more when it smacks you in the face.

Unless they have a serious breakthrough with batteries, alternative energy is just a novelty, something for guilt ridden idiots with more money than brains to consume in order to pacify their perpetual anxiety.

Yup keep believing that and pushing whatever agenda you have.

My only agenda is to stop stupidity in it's tracks.

Yup... using psychology to manipulate people away from the truth. You've been exposed. Go away and suck on yer nuclear energy teet.

The only thing exposed is your ridiculousness.

Yup... Knew you had a game plan and thanks to your dumb ass AMA you have been exposed as a manipulator. Bye.

I'm the manipulator but here you are yapping about a carbon tax, and how we should pay it. What kind of lame ass reverse psychology stunt you runnin'?

What do you not understand about fuck off and goodbye?

Oh I see you want the last word. Ok.

I'm not a movie screen, you don't need to project on me.

Also China still burns coal for MOST of it's energy, shutting off 10 plants still leaves over 100 of them operational.

Europe is largely in the same boat, most of their energy comes from natural gas and coal, France is the only country that's really jumped on Nuclear energy.

Try Scandinavia.

44% of all energy comes from coal, the rest is nuclear, and hydro. And just so you know hydro power isn't as clean as you think it is.

Wind does provide 25% of Denmark's energy, but again wind power isn't as clean as you think, it's impractical, and it's maintenance isn't exactly "green".

Because it's a resurgence of the Al Gore types. The whole Bush fiasco being dug up again because it's the strongest argument against conservatives and often spread by conspiracy theorist in the early days of the post 9/11 world.

It worked back then, they are hoping for a repeat of 2008 for 2018/2020. First step, generate hatred and superiority. You have to literally convince your base that the other side is less than human, they are nothing more than ignorant roadblocks instead of Americans.

Time is a flat circle.

Maybe it's a conspiracy sub smart enough to know that just saying the government is lying no matter what also isn't a great truth finding tactic.

Exactly. There's rhetoric and agendas on both sides and I question them both. I don't immediately say one or the other is wrong, but I entertain all possibilities to start, then try my goddamn best to weed out the bullshit. My filter is getting clogged these days.

Agreed. And this is the third time on this sub where I've seen a response essentially gatekeeping what someone has to believe to comment on r/conspiracy. "You're really against wikileaks on r/conspiracy?" "You're on r/conspiracy and not denying of the government's story?" "You're promoting the MSM's narrative on r/conspiracy?"

Seems like a lot of r/conspiracy is a bunch of kids that all believe and disbelieve the same things. Seems a lot like a...

So we blindly believe OPEC and its unbiased propositions? Come on, the government is much more of a tool for oil companies to curb energy innovation by competitors than listen to science. It's much more likely that "tried and true corp." used government enough to stall alternative energies until it could garner the tech and legal to seize and control it, securing its competitive advantage. For one, all you get is talk about climate change. Where's the real power? In legislation, and it never favors climate change...think about that. So who does it favor? I wonder if those same corporate giants happen to fund a lot of anti-climate change disinfo nonsense to muddy the waters and plant seeds of doubt in those not really up to date on the science but not stupid either, hmm? Don't worry though, we'll transition in energy conspumtion. We have to. We know it, they know it...its just about timing. When they pull the veil and admit to profit or when it's painfully obvious, hopefully the former.

Yeah, except those taxes will just get passed on to the consumer

"Taxes get passed on to the consumer." Quoted for irony.

What an insightful comment

Personally I believe that we have almost infinite petrol resources, and will continue to use fossil fuels far into the future. The threat of scarcity is false. In 5th grade I remember being told that we would be entirely out of gas by now...

It will run out and it's nieve to think otherwise.

Carbon and carbon dioxide essential to life. They want to tax it to bankrupt the West.

http://paradigmsanddemographics.blogspot.mx/2009/04/basic-science-of-carbon.html

A carbon tax could be great in theory but I would like to see the evidence that it would be a valid deterrent. I don't really think taxes on sodas or cigarettes has proven to be much of a deterrent. Widespread information campaigns about the dangers of drinking to much soda and smoking are the main reason both are declining not the price. I could be wrong though. When something is addictive it is usually able to overcome price barriers like that. Fossil fuels are the most addictive resource on the planet.

There also needs to be transparency on how that tax money is spent. In my cynical mind, I could just see it being funneled into the coffers of the politicians and corporations that back it. Very little of it will probably be reinvested in order to come up with new renewable energy sources. Maybe it is learned helplessness but we always seem to get screwed over.

This.

I don't deny the climate is changing, I deny that TPTB are actually looking out for "all of our best interests" in doing anything to change it.

That's not the only thing we know for sure. The majority of scientist say that they know for sure that humans are making it warmer. It's their job to know this and they say they do know for sure. You're the one telling them they don't know for sure.

Dude, ice cores.

You can disparage individual points but the fact remains that the people whose job it is to know whether we're causing global warming say we're causing global warming.

Weather changes. Climate is supposed to keep a consistent weather pattern in a region.

I honestly cannot see what is so hard to understand about humans changing the climate. How can people see all the pollution in the air and water caused by us and still think we are doing no damage? I love a good conspiracy theory but I feel like climate change denial is the most dangerous conspiracy to believe.

I don't need to read a ton of research papers and listen to any debate about this to know that we are hurting the planet.

If I sat in my room with the doors closed and burned trash it would be pretty damn obvious the effect Im having. That is essentially what humans are doing with the planet. Earth is a closed room and we are burning all types of nasty chemicals in sight without a care for the smoke surrounding us.

Thank god there is someone with sense. I do feel like this conspiracy has been purposely constructed to try to get people to keep buy fossil fuels. Very dangerous conspiracy that is being pushed out.

Pollutants in the environment and pollutants that cause the greenhouse effect are two different things though.

I was being general with the word pollution. I figure people would get the argument of my post without going into detail.

I figure people would get the argument of my post without going into detail.

The entire climate change movement in a nutshell.

what i don't get is why any conspiracist would champion a suppposed conspiracy that only hurts the petro-feul, petro-dollar cabal which is (1) why we are destroying the ME as the step-and-fetchits of SA and (2) actively waging war against citizens that want to break the power companies' monopolies.

in FL, we just barely beat an FPL trojan horse prop that would have forced those of us with solar panels to pay FPL a solar usage fee every month. some of those NO votes were surely from people who think climate change is bullshit, because the presidential race was almost half and half, but the NOs were 55%.

most conspiracies always boil down to the those with power and money entrenching their power and money against us. big petroleum ain't the freind of the common man. and they are winning the fight against the climate change believers. it's exactly like the battle against big tabacco.

i also don't get why it makes a difference if who is right about climate. the worst case scenario is that you have less exhaust in the air you breathe. i'll take their bet that exhaust from cars is benign, go lock youself in your garage and turn your car on. I'll take their bet that crude oil spilling into water or land is benign, go dig up the soil and fertilize your yard with it or drink a cup of oil filled stream water. i'll take their bet that fracking is benign, go run your tap and set it on fire.

if they argue they aren't arguing that, they come off as idiots because the only result of their "winning" is more oil in the environment, at least until we start feeling the effects of peak oil.

climate change has become the new diest/atheist argument. no one is going to yeild, but we can learn from it because nothing has ever stoped them uniting in disasters to help as many people as they can. it doesn't matter if one side does it because of christian charity and the other does it because they think it's the decenct thing to do.

it baffles me tbh

Stop using petroleum then, stop cold turkey. Good luck, it means you're giving up modern medicine, transportation, heating, modern housing, electricity, electronics, and just about everything you interact with in human world. Oh and your clothes too, because you need farm equipment to harvest the cotton, which probably runs on diesel and needs oil. Goes double for food, our pesticides, and fertilizers are petroleum based.

The real conspiracy is excessive government regulation over nuclear energy, which is the only realistic alternative source of energy. But everyone fears the nuclear genie because they grew up playing fall out and call of duty, which are just stupid games.

I know nuclear energy is considered a safe energy to use, but I can't help but think of fukashima and Chernobyl when I hear this argument. I personally don't think nuclear energy is the way to go juat becauae of the potential catastrophic consequences, but I think it is an argument worth having. We just need to get away from oil.

Fukashima and Chernobyl have both been blown out of proportion, it's less dangerous than Zero Hedge lets on. Chernobyl isn't some nuclear wasteland, call of duty isn't real life, it's a videogame. The radiation effect is just an invisible wall in the game to keep you in the sand box, it's not real life.

What disinformation are you on about? They two disasters have been very bad and should not be downplayed. The fact that Chernobyl is still sitting there, degrading should tell you something.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2016/04/060418-chernobyl-wildlife-thirty-year-anniversary-science/

Too many video games will rot your brain.

Yup and so does listening to you lol

Well then I guess you want to rot your brain because here we are. Or maybe it's too late for you.

How can people see all the pollution in the air and water caused by us and still think we are doing no damage

Pollution is a different issue than global warming. CO2 is not pollution except if it causes temperature change, whereas many other chemicals are pollution (cause health problems for humans) whilst not affecting global temperatures.

C02 negate health effects. Even if you don't believe in climate change, how is that not pollution?

According to that, the health effects aren't even very serious until you get into CO2 levels that are more than 15x the normal amount found in the atmosphere at any given moment.

In order to reach those levels you would have to be inside a building that has horrible air circulation and is poorly designed so it traps CO2. You are not going to find those levels of CO2 out in the normal atmosphere as "pollution" from factories or something like that.

I see this issue the same way you do. I consider myself an environmentalist. I want us to go around planting permaculture food forest as foreign policy and consider myself an eco-Utopianist. I don't believe in climate change alarmism and that is what broke the camels back for me and turned me into a skeptic. CO2 is not actually a pollutant- it's what forests eat. All living things depend on the carbon cycle. Meanwhile climate change alarmism only focuses on one element in a ppm in the atmosphere and declares: this number is "safe" & this number means certain doom for humanity.

Meanwhile we've got studies saying stuff like "climate change" is causing the Great Lakes have a problem with algae blooms with NO mention of stopping pollution at the source from industrial, agricultural & chemical runoff... which used to be the cause of problems. But now the culprit is CO2 with NO mention of any other known pollutant.

And we are simultaneously deforesting the entire equator for profit and leaving nothing behind. How is that helping? It's all hogwash. Then I learned that they wanted to create a carbon trading scheme & Lloyd Blankfien's first tweet was to chastise Trump for pulling out of the worthless piece of paper that is the Paris agreement and I knew exactly what this was about.

Alarmism to make a carbon trading scheme on wall street.

And what percentage of climate change is caused by human activity? These so-called deniers are mostly people like me who see that this issue is being used to take away our personal and national sovereignty.

What is being taken away from us? I am genuinely curious. How is it taking away our sovereignty, nationally or personally?

idk maybe the hundreds of billions in taxes they want for the production of a gas necessary to life.

The climate definitely changes, but how much does carbon effect that change? This is what scientists still don't agree on.

Did you know that methane from cows used in the meat industry produce more greenhouse gasses than all the cars in the United States? I guess Hillary was looking out for the environment when she scammed on those cattle futures.

Commercial shipping produces even more greenhouse gasses than cows. TPTB care nothing about the environment, and driving a hybrid car isn't going to save the polar bears.

Thank you. This is my argument. They cherry pick which ghg they want to demonize- they've chosen the least dangerous one. It's BC they planned on making a carbon trading market on wallstreet. Did you know that?

Is it really a closed room?

What percentage of Climate Change is caused by human activity? I'm guessing you can't even explain the most popular Flat Earth Model.

That would be difficult to determine. Total Change - Natural Change = Man Made.

Using fossil fuels for 100+ years, all day, every day, majority of countries... has to contribute somewhat (largely...)

I've asked plenty of FE questions but no one can make me understand it like I do globular earth. FE isn't real / doesn't exist. Sorry bud, it's to fuck with us and trick us.

In otherwords you don't know how much of climate change is caused by mankind and you can't cite evidence. Ever heard of the Medieval Warming Period? I guess that was cause by all of the bonfires people were using to cook their food?

When did you start believing the earth is a spinning ball? Did you conduct some sort of experiment or were you told to memorize these facts by your public school master?

I've asked plenty of FE questions but no one can make me understand it like I do globular earth.

Not an argument.

NASA Lie: Stars in space

What is Gravity?

Zoom on distant boat - Doesn't not disappear over the curvature though it appears to. Objects at this distance to be obfuscated by the earths curvature (~8in/mi^2).

Day and Night

I have been into stars and space my whole life. There is things that FE can't explain therefore is false. Sorry on hurting your feelings. You are free to believe what you want (but it's unfortunately not true.)

Possible causes of the Medieval Warm Period include increased solar activity, decreased volcanic activity, and changes to ocean circulation.

Possible causes of the Current Warm Period include increased solar activity, decreased volcanic activity, and changes to ocean circulation.

I have been into stars and space my whole life.

Me too! We are friends now.

There is things that FE can't explain therefore is false.

Try me. Just because you don't understand the theory does not make the earth a ball spinning at over 1,000mph are the equator! Most of us 'FEers' don't claim to know the ultimate reality - we are merely skeptical of the accepted model.

Did you know that Columbus had never seen the earth and his voyage did not prove the earth is a ball?

Did you know that Newton and his contemporaries were unaware of electromagnetic force. His theory of Gravity remains unproven.

Did you know that Eratosthenes' experiment works on the FE model?

NASA photos are composites

Don Petit - We Can't go back to the moon

NASA caught faking distance to Moon

Timezones? Difference in visible star clusters from Northern and Southern Hemispheres? Where does the oceans go? Orbit of the moon and it's cycles? Highest and lowest points of the sun in a year?

Globular Earth model explains all of this. I struggle to find a proper explanation for all of these.

Timezones

Difference in visible star clusters from Northern and Southern Hemispheres?

At night, a person on a the street sees different street lights than a person on the same street 1 mile away. In the FE model, the stars in the sky are nowhere near as far a we have been told.

Where does the oceans go?

The planet is encircled by the 'Continent' of Antarctica which contains all known bodies of water. The UN Flag seems eerily similar to this model.

What a load of crock, really...

What a load of crock, really...

This is not an argument. You are acting out of emotion because you aren't able to believe you've been fooled.

Yup, I'm the one that's been fooled...

You never explained highest and lowest point of the sun or the orbit of the moon etc. Sorry but I know and enjoy space. The Earth is a fucking globe. You can have your belief (doesn't mean it's correct though...)

You never explained highest and lowest point of the sun or the orbit of the moon etc.

But I did when I sent you an image of the model. Here it is as an animation

Tell me this, would you believe the earth is flat even if you had evidence?

You can have your belief (doesn't mean it's correct though...)

Your theory requires 'belief' mine is based on disbelief in the accepted model. You believe your theory because of second hand knowledge. Tell me, when did you start believing the earth is a spinning ball with people walking around an all sides? Did you have evidence or did you just accept the belief? Like a religion. The religion of Scientism.

Chicago skyline from across Lake Michigan ~60 mi. With a curvature of ~8 in. per miles squared the vertical distance hidden by the earth’s curve should be ~2166 . The Sears tower is 1,729′ tall at the tip. None of this should be visible.

Earth Curvature Calculator

Can you show me evidence of earth's curvature?

Can you provide an experiment or observation which proves water can be anything other than completely level?

Your theory requires 'belief' mine is based on disbelief in the accepted model. You believe your theory because of second hand knowledge.

No it doesn't. It requires calculations and even you can calculate it. I already questioned all this a long time ago but understanding about space, stars and planets, all the calculations are there and have been for a long time.

You're not going to be able to persuade me of the hypothetical, propoganda-esk, flat earth theory. There are more holes in the theory than the Earth being a globular type shape. Let's just leave it there. I'm sorry if I offend your religious beliefs.

FE?

Flat Earth

Quick question gor my mental model. Do you also post against the space hoax? (In short summary, NASA and all space agencies fake their manned "space" operations, or perhaps fake it all)

I don't trust NASA but don't know enough one way or another to make a valid point or criticism. I certainly don't think we are told as much as they know. I do believe the majority (if not all) of space flights are real, but the purpose we are told might not be the truth.

And what if told you the manned operations are a farce? Actually, why do you believe the majority, if not all, space flights are real, rather than an impressive entertainment show?

Well, it's amazing watching posts get distracted into talking about something other than the subject. Case in point: everything under me.

You are correct, but there are a lot of "users" who brigade this place nowadays.

It's probably the only place on reddit that isn't 99% the same political ideology aka an echo chamber. So there's a huge fight for influence.

As long as the checks clear, they'll continue to push whatever wherever they're told to do it.

The nonsense attack about being a Trump supporter and/or name-calling, i.e., Trumptard, is probably first on the list of instructions when someone responds to their bait.

Getting someone to engage is the goal (they know they won't change your mind) as it keeps the person from participating in more worthwhile conversations. If the conversation is continued, the ridiculousness escalates with the intent of getting the other user banned, so it's best to just ignore them.

Tag 'em and move on to things that interest you and are worth your time.

Engaging is funny though. You can start telling alt accounts because of the timing of replies. So while people are engaging the shrills, it's causing the shills to not be able to properly derail topics (more so if it's their topic or an older one.) Other big thing to notice them is the amount of hyperlinks to 'back up' their statements (as though they have a speadsheet open with all the details, ready to counter post.) You can always tell if they don't have the info at hand since they go silent for a while, until they are able to find 'evidence' to back up their fake point. A lot of conspiracies are logical. It's when you start noticing the illogical ones being pushed that you know THEY are trying to do something...

Indeed. I've engaged a few just to see how far they'd go and while I was surprised, they didn't disappoint. They'll say pretty much anything to get the reaction they want and when it doesn't come, they either go for the good stuff or they begin going in circles repeating the same few things every couple of comments.

There are a few that so consistently support each other, I'm not sure if it's one guy with alts or if they sit next to each other and coordinate who is going to take which role that day.

Take them down to the logic hole. A place where there is no escaping. That's when they have no choice but to bail.

Oh, they can escape it all right. :P

Circles all day long.

Here's a classic case.

Person A puts up a false statement or misuses logic.

Person B corrects the false statement or misuse of logic.

Person A retorts with name calling, then an accusation that Person B has committed an ad hominem.

Then weave into this failure to reply to responses, new excuses, different paths, etc.

Option b, friend.

in theory your title is right, but in practice most people who raise that point with exclusive reference to trump are just pro-trumpists.

see subreddits like /r/media_criticism which are mostly up in arms over anti-trump material...

sure, the media has given trump a hard time. much of the media attention has been frivolous or focused on unimportant matters. or fabricated. or horribly slanted.

but it hasn't been a hard enough time. the man is a fraud and a threat to us all, and the media has managed to identify some-- but not all, or even most-- of the absurd and detrimental things that man is doing.

sure, the media has given trump a hard time.

Understatement of the century. I've been alive long enough to see the last 30 years of Presidents and how the media as a unit treats them, never has a sitting President faced this kind of constant onslaught from the start.

Have you lived long enough to see a president insult the family of a dead veteran live on national television?

I said this yesterday when it was the top post on reddit. Trump brings it all on himself. If there's a conspiracy, it's related to how this post needs to be here every single day.

Trump directly made the media his enemy by calling them liars, even when they were telling the truth.

The media was Trumps enemy from the moment the GE began, after the orders from Hillary's camp to artificially prop him up(check the leaked emails) ended.

Look man, you got fooled. The gold star families thing was one distinct difference between trump and other candidates, but if you actually pay attention to the criticism and read between the lines, you'll find that a lot of it is genuinely fair.

So you woke up from a coma on 1/20/17? Cause Barry didn't exactly get it easy...

Are you fucking kidding? As soon as anyone took a dig at Obama the left pulled the race card.

to be fair no other president has fucked up so consistently or intentionally antagonized so many different groups so studiously from the start

There's not a fair comparison to be made because no other President has had the media out to get him from day 1. Plus when you factor the majority of these issues are based off anonymous sources you have to question the legitimacy of them to begin with.

no other President has had the media out to get him from day 1

he started antagonizing them far before his day 1, so...

He's highlighted the corruption and bias in the media far before his day 1, and they've proven him to be right since then.

When your job is to report the news without bias, there is no such thing as "he started it".

So your idea of unbiased journalism is not reporting a presidents negative actions?

You don't actually believe that do you? Trump has never been against corruption. For fucks sake he pays Tucker and breitbart is literally state run media now. He LOVES corruption and bias. For fucks sake he shares infowars.

Your talking point seems like something that would be sent to trump worshipping pundits.blatant bullshit

And people say its Russian-Trump bots that brigade this sub... yet look at how your logical post is doing compared to the completely biased and blinded posts above and below you.

You are right. People saying Obama got the same treatment, trying to pass Rush Limbaugh off as the "MSM." Fuck these shills.

Oh bull fucking shit. Trumps neggitive coverage is of his own doing by being an incompetent moron.

These Trump administration talking points are insane.

Funny how this person basically made the same post 5 hours ago. Is this the new talking point? That Trump does tons of stupid shit which brings negative attention to himself?

Was it media manipulation when he attacked a Gold Star Family on national television? Made fun of the disabled? How about his talking shit about his own Intel agencies? Shoved the PM of another country? Acts like a high school girl on Twitter? What about bringing up Rosie O'Donnell during a presidential debate?

Maybe if he wasn't a walking train wreck that can't get out of his own way he'd stop giving the media reason to attack him.

I mean here's a direct video of him bringing up Rosie at the debates: https://youtu.be/zVilhPGRJdQ

If he responds to this, his answer is going to be "well who cares anyway?".

The SOP right now is: "Trump never said that, but if he did it doesn't matter."

And then eventually: Hillary would have been worse

And then finally "go back to /r/politics."

There is also footage of him using exactly the same mannerisms against Ted Cruz, unidentified Army Generals, and various others as he is supposed to have used to specifically mock a disabled reporter.

The claim, though oft repeated, simply does not withstand critical scrutiny.

IIRC those incidents were after the thing with the reporter, so he was clearly trying to play it off, and the reporter has said that Trump knew him and knew he was disabled

He mocked the reporter in November 2016. A month earlier he mocked banking regulators using the same gesture and army generals using the exact same gesture. Like I said, when you actually look into it, the complaint has no substance.

2015, not 2016, and he said before he did the gesture "You've got to see this guy" and did the whole mocking, including the limp wrist, which he doesn't really do when mocking the generals. He also claimed to not know him when the reporter had previously covered him for a couple years and interviewed him, Trump was lying.

Either way my point still stands that many of OP claims that were called 'disproven' were clearly not

How many reporters has Trump come across, do you think? Estimate it. You have to switch off your sole remaining braincell to entertain the idea that Trump genuinely wanted to mock a disabled reporter, so he hose to use the same gesture he'd previously used, because he remembered the exact mechanism of his disability from the thousands of reporters that Trump had met in his life. It is just a ridiculous, hysterical assertion.

Nice try but your not lying your way out of this lol.

• Doubling down on attacking the Kahn family - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9_8dSiQBXog

• Mocking disabled reporter - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WumFK-f9xhY

• Bashing Intel Agencies - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zDTAe4E3gRg https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/819164172781060096?lang=en

• Shoving PM of Montenegro - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PDsQfXDzebE

• O'Donnell insult during debate - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s9lcr-wsYOk

FAKE NEWS!

But in all seriousness, the lies that you are replying to work because people are lazy. On Reddit, it's incredibly common for people to develop a strong opinion about an article based solely on the headline. But that isn't something unique to this site. People are lazy and will gladly accept information that conforms to their beliefs while actively ignoring any evidence/proof that contradicts them.

I dislike Trump but the only one of these I take issue with is mocking a disabled reporter. The rest are either sensationalized ("shoving" lol), uninteresting, or even good: it's about time the president calls out the IC.

He's not Stallone or Schwarzenegger lol. What do you think it looks like when a 70 year old shoves someone out of the way?

You would call that a shove, lol? I would say he "brushed him aside"

Why did you put true in quotation marks? How have any of those been disproven? How are they not true?

Man, theres so many videos of him doing shit that would bring on so much hate. Its not a conspiracy, he's doing it on purpose. Thats why he's popular.

How about his talking shit about his own Intel agencies?

One of the best things he did. Not exactly as ballsy as what JFK had to say, but it was a step in the right direction. Too bad that it won't happen again, so you can rest easy now. Nobody is gonna talk bad about your poor, misunderstood, abused little deep state anymore.

Some are true believers. Some just spam links. Some think Trump = TPTB. Some , I suspect, are just here to shill MSM articles. Then there are some who hail from the marchagainsttrump/resist/enoughtrumpspam crew, but they are pretty obvious because they spend most of their time in the comments complaining about this sub and calling it TD 2.0 or TD lite because we don't get excited for their washington post or other anonymously sourced trump gossip articles.

I wish there was a rule against ONLY spamming links and never commenting, but I am sure there are honest exceptions that would hurt.

The best stuff in this sub is always in the comment sections.

That said, the best stuff in this sub is always in the comment sections.

I'd argue the opposite when a sub is being taken over like this one. Right now the shills have enough "posters" to take over the comments section and upvote what they choose. Not enough real posters take the time to delve into the comments section, they just upvote articles based off the title and move on.

It's why you see such a disparity these days here between the topics that get upvoted, and the content of the upvoted comments.

Why wouldn't it be the opposite?

It'd be way easier to get a bot-farm to upvote articles than to automatically vet comments.

I would argue that the pro-trump bot farm (as seen on T_D, and proven when they couldn't even get a petition to match 1/5 the size of their userbase) is upvoting the articles and the comments are natural.

Same thign happened in /r/politics. I watched it unfold live after Sanders lost CA during the primary. The sub went from a Pro Sanders anti MSM sub to a CTR infested Pro Hillary pro MSM sub.

Shills take over the comments, so even though the content of the articles matches the tone of the sub the comments don't. Eventually the organic posters leave after getting fed up with the comments sections, and the shills have enough to take over the front page articles as well.

You're missing the point of the person above you. It is much easier and automated process to game upvotes on articles you submit yourself than it is to have a group of people manipulating the comments. And since most people just read the headlines and never go into the comments it is also a much more fruitful method of narrative control. It makea 0 sense to leave the headlines alone and then shill in the comments, like you assert is happening.

It's not true though, because way more people upvote or downvote the article than participate in the comments. It takes fewer accounts to attack the comments and accomplishes multiple psychological subversion goals along the way.

Doesn't matter. People are expensive and IP addresses are cheap.

It happened fast. I still haven't wrapped my head around all the forces that were at play surrounding that transition

It's not hard to figure out. The subreddit was liberal.

The liberal candidate in the primaries was Sanders.

Then the primaries ended. The liberal candidate in the main election was Hillary.

It was more drastic than that. Before CA, it was anti-Clinton, too.

Sure, right up until the point where being anti-Clinton was being pro-Trump.

And even after the primaries there was a lot more anti-trump sentiment than pro-clinton sentiment.

Yea. S4P got overrun by trump fans trying to pull us over. And then the demexit phenomenon happened. Crazy, high-emotion times.

The subreddit went from hillary vs sanders to hillary vs trump, and it picked the liberal candidate both times.

The CTR stuff was just a distraction; we even got CTR's internal playbooks and astroturfing wasn't in there.

The idea is to 'no platform' anyone right of Vladimir Lenin. The idea is to prevent you from even considering voicing support for the president or even so much as one of his actions (even if it was working to dissolve the BIS, they'd be opposed.

It's group manipulation. It's thought policing. Every ounce of obnoxious they squeezed into the years 2008-2016 they now squeeze into every comment thread on the Internet where anyone dare speak positively of the president. I see that you've noticed too.

ORRRRRRRR everyone in the world but desperate ardent Trump supporters, see that Trump as a human being is absolute gutter trash.

I disagree with Trumps policies and I would actually be happy if he was impeached. We are in an important time in human history and we need a more capable leader. With that being sad, you and your radicalized anti-trump buddies are just as guilty as Trump cultists in terms of bringing this country down farther into this shit hole. The fact that you can call a human being who seems to be a good father to his kids and has not been charged with any crimes gutter trash is embarrassing. You need to learn some compassion and empathy.

I am and forever will be a Bernie Democrat, who's campaign was the embodiment of the compassion and empathy needed in this country. He was robbed by pro-corporate neoliberals, and now the country is under the control of Ayn Rand right-wing authoritarian cultists that represent the latest closest existential threat to the US we all once knew. We could be one Marshall law away from a narcissist tyrant pulling a Turkey on our country.

I do 100% agree with you that we are starving for a more capable leader that can unite people on the left and the right under the common cause of well-being for the majority of Americans, versus the current subjugation of the middle and lower classes by wealthy sociopaths in power controlling both parties.

We all need to rise up against this common enemy, but I agree that we are reaching extreme levels of division fomented by media propaganda on both sides.

everyone in the world

Let's play, "name that fallacy!"

Its a psychological abuse tactic. They want to drive you crazy by gaslighting you and calling you names that you are not, in order to eventually try and break down your belief system and convince yourself that because you believe XYZ, you MUST BE a horrible trump supporter.

This would be the top comment if we weren't getting brigaded so hard

The people who need to see it will see it.

This is a salient point.

Unfortunately it's buried easily in the noise of astroturing and ideology.

They have framed the discussion in such a way that if you aren't rabidly anti-trump, not only are you a trump shill, but you are a blight on the human race too. It's ridiculous, and artificial. They are weaponizing synthetic shame.

The shame should be felt purely on the basis that Trump has been an incompetent snake oil salesman for most of his adult life, but servile desperate low-information voters are still falling for his "I truly care about you" bullshit.

A random esist poster shows up to prove OPs point!

I don't even bother clicking on their user history anymore because they're always coming from the same group of agenda subreddits.

Haha yeah it's super obvious. I wish you could res tag on phones! That would truly be a gift.

You are just an un-American tool who is gullible to fall for late-night infomercials from a SNAKE, or as Trumpies call it "Trump campaign promises".

The world is ashamed that you all defend your redneck crew in the White House no matter what, even when such a dumb puppet of the oligarch is giving away our government under your nose. Thanks Trumpies. Enjoy the next 15 months.

Wow... You need to take a break from politics in my opinion. You are very angry and hateful and I just don't think hating strangers as much as you do is this healthy.

Take the blinders off and calm down buddy.

The Founding Fathers would be livid at the apathy of Trumpies. I refuse to accept that our American Experiment is culminating with such a dumbass swindler in power. Reality TV and a general lack of education finally caught up to us. With corporations having the most servile puppet yet, it is time to get as angry as Americans were by 1776.

Calls for revolution eh? I don't think so. You can use all the buzzwords you want. If you think Hillary, Obama, or even Bush wasn't in the pockets of the Banks and Corporations I have a bridge to sell you. The government combined with horrifically stupid practices led to nearly the collapse of our financial system and remember who went to jail for that?

Yeah now with Trump in power the corporations finally win! Oh no! Dude go Occupy Wall Street lol.

Calls for alertness and patriotism. I call Trump supporters servile tools because the only answer to all the shady shit Trump is pulling is for them to look the other way and say "lol Obama and Clinton did it so...". The main difference between the two is Republicans wear the subjugation of women, minorities, and the poor as a fucked up and macabre badge of honor. Their big money donors are quite pleased. Again, the state of both parties would make our Founding Fathers livid.

How much you get paid tho?

I wish!

Seriously.. How does one seek employment with ShareBlue? Did they recruit you via blackmail? Do you work from home? Can you choose your hours?

Thanks for that clarification! All this time I was looking for ShariaBlue in Indeed.com.

Yes, the last presidential election made it abundantly clear that a significant portion of the US public is happy to have smoke blown up their asses, so long as it is their preferred flavor of bullshit. We deserve everything that we are about to get.

Is Donald Trump/government the first government to be supported by /r/conspiracy? I thought we were suppose to be suspicious of the government.

Did you not read the post at all? You don't have to support them to see the media had marching orders.

Go through his profile. Lol. And the front page - support, support, support!

Shit wait, you're from /r/The_Donald

Media manipulation AGAINST Drumpfh?

Where is this supposed propaganda happening?

Am I in crazy world now?

Agenda Setting Theory. The unseen yet influential forces are the puppet masters. They use various forms of media platforms to prime/ manipulate people into thinking/behaving a certain way subconsciously.

Both sides are responsible for their own propaganda campaigns.

i am glad we can all agree that calling someone a trump supporter is seen in a negative light.

Because it is.

Soon you guys will be calling for them to be marked and put in camps

There IS media manipulation against Trump.

Trump IS an incompetent fucking tool of the oligarchs who has been swimming in Russian mafia money since the 1980's, and Trump is DUMB enough that he has been fumbling and digging his own grave through his own glaring mistakes since prior to taking office.

Both sides have a point, but Trump was a bad bet all around for his servile supporters.

I dunno. Trump going after Lynch and Comey for covering for Hillary has me a bit in his camp today.

https://i866.photobucket.com/albums/ab229/9Iron/tumblr_mqm0qbH01O1r3vs52o2_500_zps99e7e36e.gif

THANK YOU

I'm a bot, bleep, bloop. Someone has linked to this thread from another place on reddit:

• [/r/betternews] Pointing out media-manipulation / information-warfare against Trump is NOT equal to being a Trump supporter. Is this really such a hard concept to understand? Are the people on this subreddit that obtuse? Or are large groups of people here specifically to create that narrative.

^{If you follow any of the above links, please respect the rules of reddit and don't vote in the other threads. (Info / Contact)}

Sure the media is biased, it always has been, this is nothing new. Trump is still a fucking moron and unfit to be president.

But it's usually calling into question the credibility of the media in order to try and discredit their take on a Trump v Media story - thus tacitly boosting up Trump. Maybe they're conspiracies that should be pointed out but they're not unmotivated in the context of the Trump information war.

I've run into flack for this as well. I'm not particularly fond of Trump, but I can't in good conscience tolerate baseless attacks. There's plenty to go after him for that's legitimate, it's just dirty and lazy to make things up.

It must be both... Anyone casually into politics simply will not abide anything but criticism of Trump, specifically.

Just to lighten things up today I found out you can use obtuse in a situation not involving triangles.

It will be once the world totally fucks up : )

Just remember that ignoring our impact on the environment is dangerous thinking and we should be doing all we can to keep everything as neutral as possible.

So is closing yourself off to the idea that it is fabricated! :D But yes, it is good to be good to your surroundings. I have a smart car because I'm poor but I still want to lessen my impact, not to mention my own garden, and hopefully some chickens, soon. Am I certain that some shadowy group is poisoning my food and destroying the world with carbon emissions? Nah. Do I try to do my best in a world of uncertainty? Yeah.

Most of your 'info' is false and fabricated to fit the 'climate change hoax' agenda.

There is extreme weather... Sea levels have risen... Heat records are being broken world wide (last year or the year before...)

Mostly fake info to push the climate change hoax narrative, mixed in with TPTB type shit to get people to be led along easier. Manipulation.

Things that are more harmful to yourself or others is taxed high to try to reduce people doing it.

I see, you believe it is your moral obligation to see others punished for their perceived 'sins.' As an aside, people like yourself are the very worst holy rollers alive. Worse than my dying grandparents friends when they meet up in Branson.

A house built on lies cannot stand.

Nope. Humans were created.

Im gonna send you these one by one. RIP your inbox

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10712-011-9119-1

http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aa6825

Yeah and chemical reactions also need to happen in order for you to remain alive, just like every other living thing. Also everything is a chemical, I don't think you've really thought this through, sounds to me like you're just regurgitating things you've been told.

We don't add anything, matter like energy cannot be created or destroyed.

https://academic.oup.com/icesjms/article/65/3/414/789605/Impacts-of-ocean-acidification-on-marine-fauna-and

It's simple to see that we do add into the overall effect. How much, is difficult to determine but I would be very surprised if it was a very little amount.

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10712-011-9119-1

You're going to be extremely surprised then.

Research on rising sea levels in Bangladesh

https://judithcurry.com/2013/10/07/bangladesh-sea-level-rise/

Research on antarctic ice shelf loss

http://science.sciencemag.org/content/348/6232/327

I wish... so no, I don't. I just agree that we should be taxed on things that have an effect on society.

He mocked the reporter in November 2016. A month earlier he mocked banking regulators using the same gesture and army generals using the exact same gesture. Like I said, when you actually look into it, the complaint has no substance.

Same thign happened in /r/politics. I watched it unfold live after Sanders lost CA during the primary. The sub went from a Pro Sanders anti MSM sub to a CTR infested Pro Hillary pro MSM sub.

Shills take over the comments, so even though the content of the articles matches the tone of the sub the comments don't. Eventually the organic posters leave after getting fed up with the comments sections, and the shills have enough to take over the front page articles as well.

What kind of sub is this? a conspiracy sub trusting "govt." based solutions? Are there any skeptics left on this sub??

Yeah, except those taxes will just get passed on to the consumer

Personally I believe that we have almost infinite petrol resources, and will continue to use fossil fuels far into the future. The threat of scarcity is false. In 5th grade I remember being told that we would be entirely out of gas by now...

Which PTB, though? Because half of them are super against AGW (oil, coal, military industrial lobbies, heavy industry, etc)

You're lying to yourself if you think TPTB have a unified position on global climate change.

I was supporting my assertion that vast sums of wealth need to move. Nice slide though.

How is quoting the sources you linked to sliding?

Carbon and carbon dioxide essential to life. They want to tax it to bankrupt the West.

http://paradigmsanddemographics.blogspot.mx/2009/04/basic-science-of-carbon.html

Fukashima and Chernobyl have both been blown out of proportion, it's less dangerous than Zero Hedge lets on. Chernobyl isn't some nuclear wasteland, call of duty isn't real life, it's a videogame. The radiation effect is just an invisible wall in the game to keep you in the sand box, it's not real life.

Lol. It's not even proven to be a theory. And you are still here acknowledging that you are debating over a pseudoscience.

Again you don't know what you're talking about.

It's a word they saw in a few crackpot articles, and thought sounded authoritative about the subject. Just another LARPer.

I'm spewing propaganda, what the fuck have you been doing?

You are, retarded, the videogames and cigarettes have taken their toll, denying reality is not going to change it, it's just going to hurt more when it smacks you in the face.

Unless they have a serious breakthrough with batteries, alternative energy is just a novelty, something for guilt ridden idiots with more money than brains to consume in order to pacify their perpetual anxiety.

Doesn't matter. People are expensive and IP addresses are cheap.

A carbon tax could be great in theory but I would like to see the evidence that it would be a valid deterrent. I don't really think taxes on sodas or cigarettes has proven to be much of a deterrent. Widespread information campaigns about the dangers of drinking to much soda and smoking are the main reason both are declining not the price. I could be wrong though. When something is addictive it is usually able to overcome price barriers like that. Fossil fuels are the most addictive resource on the planet.

There also needs to be transparency on how that tax money is spent. In my cynical mind, I could just see it being funneled into the coffers of the politicians and corporations that back it. Very little of it will probably be reinvested in order to come up with new renewable energy sources. Maybe it is learned helplessness but we always seem to get screwed over.

Thank you. This is my argument. They cherry pick which ghg they want to demonize- they've chosen the least dangerous one. It's BC they planned on making a carbon trading market on wallstreet. Did you know that?

Thanks for that clarification! All this time I was looking for ShariaBlue in Indeed.com.

What a load of crock, really...

This is not an argument. You are acting out of emotion because you aren't able to believe you've been fooled.

Yup, I'm the one that's been fooled...

You never explained highest and lowest point of the sun or the orbit of the moon etc. Sorry but I know and enjoy space. The Earth is a fucking globe. You can have your belief (doesn't mean it's correct though...)