Not really, researchers aren't the ones making solar panels and green energy tech. Hell even oil companies we're trying to hide the fact they knew global warming was a problem.

Companies that manufacture solar panels and green energy tech are given massive incentives to do so (subsidies, tax breaks and so on). That's why I called it the manufactured outrage industry.

I'm not saying that the oil industry, specifically the petrochemical industry isn't a problem. Plastics are a problem. I've been to the Pacific gyre. It's alarming. But the hysteria surrounding CO2 emissions and other aspects of the global warming, or "climate change" as it's now called, are indeed manufactured.

But the hysteria surrounding CO2 emissions and other aspects of the global warming, or "climate change" as it's now called, are indeed manufactured.

How? Why can't you recognize there is a problem?

Because weather patterns fluctuate. Throughout the life of our planet, there have been ice ages and there have been devastating worldwide fires. Temperatures fluctuate. The amount of the humans have been on the earth is a blink of an eye in comparison to the total lifespan of the earth. To believe that we've affected such devastating change in such a small timeframe is bordering on pandemonium of insanity.

I'm just pointing out where the outrage started. It was started by a think tank. It's a problem dreamt up by men sitting around a table.

That's fine, but when you take into account the drastic shift that happened to our climate once the industrial revolution hit and shit started to take off it doesn't really add up that is just natural change. https://xkcd.com/1732/

That's good info, and I'm taking it into account. But again, who is funding the research you cite?

Money is a funny thing because it's two things at once. It's the root of all evil and the clearest pathway to truth (or the willful omission of it).

The simple fact oil companies we're trying to suppress knowledge and act like it isn't a thing should be more than enough for you then if you are only worried about the money and don't want to look at anything else. That's an extremely shortsided view to take but whatever.

Of course they were trying to suppress info that may damage them! Wouldn't you?

That doesn't mean that the info is true

The view isn't short sided. It's skeptical and it's healthy and it doesn't cling dogmatically to probably-false information that you cannot independently verify.

Why is it probably false though? You can't just claim that and not back up scientifically how it's false.

You're right. It's unfair of me to characterize the info as false without giving it a fair shake.

I'd like to know who paid for it, how long the study or studies lasted, etc.

I think it's worth staying again that the probability of humans doing the sort of damage we're purported to have done in the timeframe we've been given is preposterous on its face.

I'm surprised that there are so many climate change proponents in the conspiracy sub. That's interesting.

I think it's worth staying again that the probability of humans doing the sort of damage we're purported to have done in the timeframe we've been given is preposterous on its face.

But the thing is that the probability looks 100% when you consider the drastic slide in the climate that is unprecedented at any point in history, that literally coincides with the industrial revolution.

I agree. I think that is peculiar as well. Now, who paid for that research to be conducted? Does the conclusion reached fit any agendas of anyone involved? I'm not asking you these questions to be obtuse. I'm asking because we as skeptics cannot blindly follow statistics we're fed by governments and entities we inherently don't trust.

It's peculiar to me how people can state that our government lied to us about what really happened on 9/11, then in the same breath, they cite government figures on climate change. It's mind-boggling.

Now, who paid for that research to be conducted? Does the conclusion reached fit any agendas of anyone involved?

If you are skeptical that's one thing but to blindly dismiss everything is another thing, which is exactly what you are doing. It's not just the US doing climate research...

That doesn't mean that the info is true

Not to mention how do you know the bullshit studies oil companies put out are true? I can take your position to prove that climate change is real. Your position logically doesn't make sense

I swear, you cannot utter the words "global warming" on Reddit without someone shoving an XKCD comic down your throat while they educate and shame you for even the mere questioning of the status quo. You're not having a discussion, you're just attacking an inquisitive mind.

An inquisitive mind should be able to see how the trend is going and see why it clearly isn't just natural climate developments. The cause is clear as crystal. I'm sorry linking countering information that goes against his view is considered attacking him lol

I'm glad you're so confident that the information you cite is unbiased and factual, and that you've been around for billions of years to observe what's "natural development" and what isn't.

I'm glad that you've been around for billions of years to observe what's "natural development" and what isn't.

No, but we have ways to gauge air mixture and CO2 levels. It's not magic

And how can you know that an increase in this gas isn't the natural progress of the earth? I agree we should take care of our planet, but the alarmist approach is damaging and silly.

And how can you know that an increase in this gas isn't the natural progress of the earth? I agree we should take care of our planet, but the alarmist approach is damaging and silly.

Because the dramatic increase literally starts right when the industrial revolution hits and the earth becomes industrialized..

Correlation doesn't equal causation.

Haha oh boy here we go. It can be a key indicator when you pick apart the data enough to show they are connected. And that's exactly what is done. We know the answer to not fucking up the earth which involves not polluting like mad, so even if it was all a made up lie by the US government according to you, we would still be better of in regards to health if we reduce pollution. Kinda funny how that works

You're misunderstanding me obviously. I'm not an asshole. I'm all for reducing pollution.

You linked a web comic, which hardly counts as "countering information". I find this common Reddit cult behavior strange, since there are plenty of credible sources you could link to support your argument.

OP never claimed your statement wasn't a possibility. OP is simply giving other avenues to be explored, which nurtures discussion and brings new perspective to a stale subject. You're trying to stifle any real conversation that does not reinforce your fragile ego.

Why even come to this sub-reddit if that is your attitude? Seems kind of masochistic to me. You'll find no yes-men here.

Why even come to this sub-reddit if that is your attitude? Seems kind of masochistic to me. You'll find no yes-men here.

Because letting this sub be an echo chamber is counterproductive to what you guys claim to represent.

OP simply suggested there may be other motives behind global warming. Not once did he deny it's existence or argue against your position.

You attacked him for simply opening the door to further discussion that may lead to conclusions that you don't like. How is nurturing conversation creating an echo-chamber?

I feel like your projecting, since I've never heard his approach to the climate-change subject before, yet I can't see the words "global warming" on my screen without a barrage of XKCD comics and people like your vehemently stifling any kind of real open discussion on the matter.

I feel like your projecting, since I've never heard his approach to the climate-change subject before, yet I can't see the words "global warming" on my screen without a barrage of XKCD comics and people like your vehemently stifling any kind of real open discussion on the matter.

Because its easy to see why the impact we've had isn't natural when looking at the comic. Someone of your mental fortitude should be able to see why its a good easy representation of why we are the problem. And OP is skeptical of climate change reinforced by humans. He proved it by saying correlation is not causation. Keep whining about how he is nurturing conversation and I'm hurting it when you are attacking me and questioning why I even come here.

You're not approaching the topic as a conversation. You are trying to tell everyone why their opinion is irrelevant and how you know better than anyone with a conflicting argument. How is that helping anyone? I'm not attacking you, I'm accusing you.

The comic is more correct than any manipulated source. All you have to do is think logically. Does the burning of fuels cause pollutants to go into the atmosphere? If yes, we shouldn't be doing it...

No one is claiming otherwise. People use real global threats to their advantage for personal gain all the time. Why can't we discuss other motives behind pushing global warming agenda? Global warming can be both a real problem and an agenda used by politicians and big corporations for nefarious purposes.

The denial is certainly an agenda atm. It's to try to stop people thinking about the effect we are having on the planet and to continue using pollutants as a fuel source.

Global warming can be both a real problem and an agenda used by politicians and big corporations for nefarious purposes.

Thats not even what OP is saying though. OP is very clearly skeptical of it even being a problem.

I think you're assuming a lot and jumping to your own conclusions without ever hearing what OP has to say on the issue.

Are you not reading his posts or his edits?

Thank you.

Thank you.

Burning fossil fuels for over 100 years puts pollutants into the atmosphere which will affect climate change.

Mega volcanic eruptions and massive uncontrolled wildfires do the same thing naturally, and in a far shorter timeframe.

Look, I'm pointing out that the concept of global warming was dreamt up by men. At a think tank. Because they needed "an enemy".

I think this concept of 'global warming being dreamt up by man' is to try to get people to continue using fossil fuels (which does add into the atmosphere.)

You are correct the Earth does natural things which adds into the atmosphere aswell. Do you really think it's wise to continue doing the same thing when there is a chance of a mega volcano, or even something worse? As soon as something happens, we are all fucked because people don't give a shit about their fossil fuel usage contributing to the on going effect.

You think the concept of global warming was invented to encourage people to continue using fossil fuels?

Are you sure?

The denial aspect of it, yes.

Ohhhh I see what you're saying.

Could be.

I think the "denial", if that's what you'd like to call it, was born out of a healthy skepticism based on the fact that we've been lied to repeatedly by governments and corporations and we're tired of being sold fear.

Be skeptical of everything. Especially those things that are being pushed the hardest atm.

Random Notes and Questions:

Population Control was the leading concern of the Club of Rome. Since 1972 the world has somehow managed to hit the lowest level of population growth the Club suggested was possible. (Check me on the stats given in Limits to Growth - a data wonk approach to what they predicted and what actually happened would be a great addition).

How did all the many and various environmental concerns get folded into one issue? In the old days (1970's thru 1990's), if you professed to be an "environmentalist" (as I did) you had a long list of concerns you could actively support. I will list a few of those I remember below.

Air and Water pollution, Recycling, Wilderness preservation, Species extinction, Food additives, Pesticide and herbicide use, Seed diversity, Monoculture of a few crops vs. plant diversity, Nuclear waste, Asbestos and radon contamination, Municipal wastewater treatment, Fresh water aquifers, Ozone depletion, and many others (please continue with ones I missed here...)

You could be an environmentalist without having population control and CO2 emissions as your primary focus. I am in that camp - those two issues just don't convince me, although I am adamant about all the rest. But isn't it fascinating that all significant environmental action nowadays is co-opted into Climate Change?

Do we ever hear about these specific issues (which are still out there) in any measure as strongly as we get hit with the MSM heavy-handed and scary-as-can-be message about Climate Change?

Here's what strikes me as really funny in a horrible way: Every one of those environmental issues could be addressed somehow. Through public pressure, awareness, grass-roots, old fashioned politics and legislation, every one of them could have been massively improved in the last 20 years, bit by bit. Instead we all got to focus on Global Warming and then Climate Change.

But how do you "massively improve" Climate Change? What does that even mean? Apparently the ONLY SOLUTION is an extensive global redistribution of wealth through some complicated carbon tax system, and an economically painful and difficult scaling back on carbon emissions - also requiring global regulation and oversight.

So where does that leave someone who sincerely wants freedom from oppression (as in the NWO), who wants a pristine environment, a healthy food-chain, and a robust, growing population (after all, who's going to colonize Mars?)

Out of luck?

That was perfectly put.

My simple answer: All the issues have been rolled into "Climate Change" to make the package nice and neat. They don't care about your individual concerns. They're interested in selling you the whole thing, neatly-packed, backed up by dry-labbed, government-sanctioned pseudoscience.

That product is fear.

And people are buying.

That product is fear.

And people are buying.

Preprogramming, actually. So many peole are falling for their lies such as "depopulation is beneficial"...

You're right

Great comment

Great comment...

Apparently the ONLY SOLUTION is an extensive global redistribution of wealth through some complicated carbon tax system

...but such carbon tax is beyond silly, it's a sinister fraud because it would increase the price of energy by some 20%. We should aim for the opposite, that is amazingly cheap and abundant energy.

So where does that leave someone who sincerely wants freedom from oppression (as in the NWO), who wants a pristine environment, a healthy food-chain, and a robust, growing population (after all, who's going to colonize Mars?)

Have you never heard about alternative solutions such as orbital ring coupled with a space elevator, delivering vast quantities of cheap solar energy?

While it's clear that this topic has been used as a pawn and used to push things like a carbon tax which really won't fix the problem, that doesn't make the underlying changes we're seeing any less of an issue. Species are dying off at alarming rates, the ocean is acidifying (and being bombarded with garbage and plastics and oil), and we're seeing extreme weather more frequently than any other time in recorded history. These are facts. Scientists use these facts to extrapolate trends, and it's worrying where we are headed all in the name of profit.

We know burning fossil fuels pollute, so why doesn't that knowledge alone push us to find alternative fuel sources as a country (hint: money)? Things that people do on an individual level to reduce their carbon footprint are great, but they are really only helping that individual feel better about things because they aren't enough to actually make a difference. Until we change policies (not necessarily a tax on carbon) on a corporate level things will just remain as they are.

Also, I saw OP mention subsidies but there was just an article (on here I think) about how in Montana those in government were messing with solar regulations in order to make small solar projects challenged to get funding. So it already seems like there are people trying to tip the scales in their favor... again caring more about profit than taking care of the planet we live on. Sad.

Interesting comment.

So I'm very heavy into growing my own food. I've been an expert gardener for some years now. I'm still relatively young at 28, but I learned early.

One thing I've had to do in recent years is hand-pollinate my flowering vegetables because the bees are gone.

They're gone.

Now, do I believe that is directly attributable to manmade pollution? I have no idea. But it's a problem that can and will cause millions to starve. Species do come and go, that's a fact. This is alarming though.

So please know I'm not dismissing your position outright. The purpose of this post is to show that, yes, global warming is an "enemy" dreamt up by men at the Club of Rome. That's all.

Bees are dying out. I've noticed that they seem to be a lot smaller than 20 odd years ago.

I've noticed the physical deformation as well. Not just smaller size--porous wings, inability to collect pollen on their thoraces, etc.

So please know I'm not dismissing your position outright. The purpose of this post is to show that, yes, global warming is an "enemy" dreamt up capitalized on by men at the Club of Rome. That's all.

I hear you, though I modified your comment slightly. I think you are right in that it's being used in one way or another.

Now, do I believe that is directly attributable to manmade pollution? I have no idea. But it's a problem that can and will cause millions to starve. Species do come and go, that's a fact. This is alarming though.

Yes, I agree, species do come and go. At what point, though, do we stop and say, "Hey I think we're having an adverse affect, and that might cause a chain reaction, so let's re-evaluate our methods and consider a different way?" For example, a recent study found that certain pesticides are directly correlated with the bee die-off, and that is certainly a problem for more than just the bees themselves (like how you tied it in with your gardening).

I'm not saying we have to stop using pesticides, but clearly we need to consider if there is a better delivery system or better way to get what we want without fucking up the rest of the world in the process. It just seems that the profit motive will continue to push for the old way until we are absolutely forced to change (e.g. Idiocracy when they had no choice but to switch to water because there was a major food shortage).

Much like someone else mentioned, being an environmentalist isn't just about CO² and climate — there are so many issues going on right now on the planet, and carbon emissions is just a piece of the puzzle. I find it interesting though, that it basically always comes back to profit as the motivator for these harmful practices causing environmental problems.

Thanks for letting me rant.

That was very well said.

Just tagging in as another longtime gardener to confirm hand pollination is necessary. My tomato plants had flowers but no tomatoes. The next year, hand pollinated-- bingo. Tomatoes.

Also have had both microscopic and visible beasties that previously couldn't overwinter in my area survive multiple winters to breed, populate and wipe out plants that had been reliable for decades without any issues.

Now when I replant after something dies from "natural" causes, I'm choosing plants from areas further south that can survive cold and hot extreme temperatures and survive overwintering beasties.

It's literally changing the landscape.

Why wouldn't a carbon tax work? It's basic supply and demand.

My main concern is that it doesn't get to the root of the problem and actually change harmful behavior. Honestly it feels like fighting fire with fire (or money with money in this case), especially because of how politicized taxes are in general. I don't think taxes are inherently bad, but this just seems like an ineffective way to go about it and reminds me of a quote by Einstein.

We can not solve our problems with the same level of thinking that created them.

It's like how corporations are allowed to skirt regulations and then are only fined for their reckless behavior and because for them proper procedures would cost more than the fine they know they'll get, it's more cost effective for them to keep doing things the harmful way (because it increases their profits). It's not exactly the same, but the corporate mindset is clearly not always going to do the humane thing or actually change root behavior/thinking simply because they are fined/taxed.

To me, choosing to tax something as a way to get people to stop using it is just causing more problems:

1. A tax doesn't necessarily encourage a systemic/infrastructure change, which is what we need at this point in terms of switching from fossil fuels to cleaner, sustainable energy, otherwise we'll just keep going in circles (e.g. if a person doesn't have access to alternative transportation, they will never be able to reduce the amount of gas/emissions they produce from driving)
2. People who are already against taxes can dig in their heels and call out the politicization of the situation and thus not ever discuss the actual issues that are currently plaguing our environment.
3. Generally speaking taxes tend to affect those lower on the totem-pole that those at the top, so with no incentive to actually change, corporations would likely let the tax increases

Additionally, a carbon tax is only addressing one piece of the environment's destruction/abuse, but is so overshadowing that many talking heads (especially economists) say that the carbon tax will eventually encourage other industries to "green up" — sounds like they're proposing trickle down environmentalism. As I mentioned above about pollution through improper disposal/processing (or spills), this is a huge problem that isn't even considered when discussing a carbon tax, which is laughable. And don't get me started on all the waste (food, packaging, etc) we produce just here in the US. There are so many facets to this topic of pollution/environmental issues that a carbon tax is very reductive and seen as a panacea by many (when it's clearly not).

Here's an article that I found regarding why the Washington I-732 was defeated.

Even Washington's chapter of the Sierra Club issued a statement against the proposal, arguing that Initiative 732 "fails to affirmatively address any of the stated needs" of communities of color and low-income people, that is, "more investment in green jobs, energy efficiency, transit, housing, and renewable energy infrastructure."

Regarding your edit:

We have shills of every stripe here OP, as well as well meaning but confused people. This place is like where the rubber meets the road on reality, and every attitude is possible in any given thread.

This sub isn't what it used to be.

And to to clear, I'm not looking for an echo-chamber for my views. Nor do I need one. I'm looking to have an open and respectful dialogue free of attack and idealistic virtue signaling.

I presented a publication that is meant to make thinking people say "Hmm. Well damn." You can see that, I hope.

Oh, I hope you don't think I was criticizing you man. This is a great post. And as far as the sub, it is still the same thing, just buried under all the bs. The people that can hear will hear you.

Not at all my friend. Thank you. Thanks for defending me by the way. Touchy topic this one.

Yes it is, and I have mostly abandoned the debate. It has been so highly politicized there is no longer any useful information that can be extracted. I have read plenty on both sides and think I understand them pretty well, but have resigned myself to just keeping my side of the street clean, and hoping the world doesn't blow up.

Here's my 2 cents. First, someone needs to fund it. We can't denounce the study based on who funded it, because who's ever going to fund important studies? What we should be concerned about however, is the publications of those studies without all data disclosure. We have learned that the studies aren't the problem, it's the suppression of specific data that allows them to skew their results. So all studies should have real time disclosure of data as the study progresses, so they can't suppress any data.

I feel like people in communities should come together and share equal cost to fund studies into things that affect them. That way, one big entity isn't funding it and oversight is built in, since everyone paid equally.

You just described taxes and government. We already pay money. They already have agencies responsible for oversight of these areas, so one would assume they are studying what they are overseeing. Though since we can't trust their results for one reason or another, than your idea may be necessary, but if it got to that you would also have to conduct the study yourselves, because it can't be certain where the suppression could take place.

Yeah, my point was to decentralize it. You're right that what I described is government and oversight and agency appropriation. But it has become corrupted like anything does over time. Money and special interest creeps in, so we must build a way to combat that. Crony capitalism and regulatory capture have infected out governmental processes.

The oil industry is by far more profitable and entrenched in the American political system than the green power movement ever could be...and that fact is a direct result of decades of lobbying, subsidies, and out-right suppression of green alternatives in order to benefit Big Oil.

The status quo since the Industrial Revolution has been anti-regulation, anti-worker, anti-environment, pro-business, pro-industry, and pro-Big Oil. Just because climate change has broader cultural appeal than ever before doesn't mean that it's the status quo by any means.

What exactly has the "Global Warming outrage machine" accomplished?

It accomplished $107 Billion in federal spending between 2003 and 2010.

Source:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2011/08/23/the-alarming-cost-of-climate-change-hysteria/amp/

Fossil fuels get $550 billion/year in subsidies. Big Oil spent $1.8 billion on lobbying between 2010 & 2014.

http://fuelfix.com/blog/2014/11/12/fossil-fuels-with-550-billion-subsidies-hurt-renewables/

So what are you saying?

Your so-called Global Warming outrage machine is outspent by Big Oil by leaps and bounds, and has far less political power and support from the government.

Does that prove that the concept of manmade warming isn't an invented enemy as stated in the Club of Rome publication?

You're arguing against what the elites said they were going to do. Do you see how silly that is?

You know that climate change had been discussed as early as the 1800s, right?

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-15874560

Sorry but your quote doesn't prove that climate change is a hoax.

Neither does your coincidence. There are cave paintings that feature extraterrestrials. Does that mean they were ever among us? No. Abstract thought and discussion occurs. What I've provided is a concrete plot by powerful men to deceive.

Lol, 3 sentences is a concrete plot?

If you're worried about a concrete plot by powerful men to deceive, I highly suggest you look into the Koch brothers.

What's the worst that could happen if we adopt the attitude that global warming is caused by humans and then act on this knowledge? The planet might get a little cleaner and healthier.

What's the worst that could happen if we adopt the attitude that global warming is not caused by humans and do nothing to change our habits? The food chain might collapse and anything that is not a cockroach or bacteria may have a very difficult time adapting to the changes of the environment.

Not sure why we are arguing about whether global warming is real or not and just start cleaning up after ourselves (starting with the major polluters: the military industrial complex, big industry, and big agriculture).

Take any limited ecosystem, and there is an opportunity to saturate or starve it. Take a water system like a pond, or river, these can be over-fished to where the fish disappear, or so much toxic waste dumped into it consistently that it becomes uninhabitable for animals or plants and all life using it moves away or dies.

Same with land, it can become over-farmed and no longer grow anything, animals can become over-hunted and go extinct.

Part of our heritage as growing human societies was to learn how to A. move around so we're not constantly using up the same sources, or B. outsource, and even those locations needed breaks from time to time, so outsource to multiple locations.

And yet we're still growing, still expanding and boosting consumption.

The planet is a closed ecosystem, or rather a huge collection of ecosystems forming the closed biosphere.

Is it so unreasonable to assume the same effects we have on smaller ecosystems would scale up to planet-size eventually?

In the end, everything related to combating global warming whether it's completely true, or completely false, is an attempt to create cleaner energy that doesn't rely on exhaustible sources. This is a result we will have to reach eventually. Oil will run out, coal will run out, gas will run out ... the sun on the other hand, I guess technically it will too, but you see what I'm saying: The sun, water, wind ... these don't disappear just because we're using them to create energy.

Climate change (not global warming) is real. Can we please STFU about this being a scam and get to work saving our asses?

I think you're assuming a lot and jumping to your own conclusions without ever hearing what OP has to say on the issue.