If global warming is real,

There's no ''if''. It's very real. As a Scandinavian, I'm currently freezing my ass of at work, because the warming has gone so bad that it has caused the polar vortex to split in two, throwing sibirian like temperatures down over northern EU.

Here, see for yourself.

I think they (the banks, in regards to your question) will continue to loan freshly printed dollars out to everyone untill the last minute. Just like they continued to serve champagne and brandy on the Titanic, as it went down.

Trust me, they will do anything to avoid panic and despair.

But yeah, we're proper fucked. It's out of our control now, we can only delay.

I love this type of proof. Global warming is real because its cold today.

He gave a pretty good macro meteorological reason for it. Not just 'it is cold outside'.

Right because the earth has never warmed or cooled drastically before man./s

Sure it did. But not at this rate.

Indeed, I like to try to play devil's advocate as much as possible. Like, I am just making this up, but what if the rise in temperature is caused the the sun and has nothing to do with our activity?

Unfortunately that is not the case. The greenhouse gas levels that have preceded rise in global temperatures in the past are rising faster than ever. And all evidence is pointing to the correlation between those two elements. More greenhouse gases, higher global average temperature. And that fucks with our status quo. Which we rely on with our coastal cities and agriculture.

You say "What if" as though nobody's studying the Sun who could tell us.

Well I did say I was making that up. I just like to have an open mind, clearly you don't.

I am sure no research done before has ever been biased, misleading, or purposely inaccurate?

Well I did say I was making that up. I just like to have an open mind, clearly you don't.

I have an open mind, but not to the same question asked for the 12 millionth time over the past decade by people who show no sincere interest in doing real research to verify their "questions."

I am sure no research done before has ever been biased, misleading, or purposely inaccurate?

Oh cool so research isn't trustworthy! What a great way to insulate you from having to actually research the answers to your questions.

Well obviously the people studying the sun know a lot more about it. Everyone knows the earth has warmed and cooled in the past.

I am not saying anything is for sure so I don't know why you are attacking me so heavily. I am just promoting open mindedness and questioning things we don't know for sure.

Also this is a conspiracy subreddit, a lot of people share ideas, thoughts, questions. If we all had the answers for everything like you, then why would we be here?

Well obviously the people studying the sun know a lot more about it. Everyone knows the earth has warmed and cooled in the past.

Then what is the fucking point of your posts?

You're asking questions you already know the answer to. YES climate scientists know about the Sun and are doing their best to take it into account. YES climate scientists know the climate has changed in the past.

If you would read the rest of my comment its about questioning the narrative, being open minded. I am saying don't believe everything you see.

What scientists know and what they report could be different things. It has happened before in other fields.

You sir do not belong in this subreddit you are fighting so hard to silence me for asking questions in r/conspiracy.

the fucking point

Under what conditions would you stop attacking and start a rational discussion?

That's not what he said at all.

Its pretty much what he said. Just he said it more eloquently. How often has the polar vortex split in the past? We started measuring these things in the 1950s.

Its pretty much what he said. Just he said it more eloquently.

No he didn't. He didn't just say "it's cold" as you characterized his remark. He said that it was colder because a specific weather system changing and thus pushing cold air to a place where it normally wasn't.

That is entirely different from saying, "Global warming is real because it's cold today."

How often has the polar vortex split in the past? We started measuring these things in the 1950s.

You tell me, you seem to think he's full of shit, so you must have access to some kind of information we don't. Show us.

gets colder

MUH GLOBAL WARMING

Haha sure thing buddy

It always was and always will be out of our control. This planet has gone through hundreds to thousands of climate changes. We are extremely fortunate to be living in a time when it has been warm for such a long period of time. A warming planet means that the human race prospers and populations rise. We are overdue for a cold period. The small amount of carbon humans have put into the atmosphere is a drop in the bucket and the side effect of that is that photosynthesis is increased resulting in more crops, plants, forested areas and receding deserts.

Once the next ice age sets in, we are fucked.

The biggest hoax is that HIV causes AIDS. It doesn't.

Please enlighten us on this grand conspiracy then.

Well, for starters, Dr. Peter Duesberg began unraveling the myth by looking at the "scientific" studies.

"In March 1987, Dr. Peter Duesberg, professor of molecular biology at the University of California, Berkeley, and one of the world's leading experts on retroviruses, a field he helped pioneer, wrote in Cancer Research that he didn't believe HIV, a retrovirus, caused AIDS. He argued that HIV was too inactive, infected too few cells, and was too difficult to even find in AIDS patients to be responsible. And since the virus is notoriously difficult to isolate, antibody detection became the indicator of infection-something Duesberg protested is highly inconsistent. Antibodies dominant over a virtually unfindable virus has always meant the immune system has triumphed over the invader, not capitulated to it. Finally, there were AIDS cases without any HIV, virus or antibody, further weakening the hypothesis. The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) swept those under the carpet by changing the definition of what an AIDS patient is to necessarily include HIV infections. But hundreds of HIV-free, certified AIDS cases surfaced again at the 1992 International Conference on AIDS, and now total over 4,000. This time the CDC changed the name of the disease. Duesberg contends it's AIDS nonetheless and changing the name only further distracts from the likelihood that HIV doesn't cause it."

Here is the best resource you can use if you truly want to go down this rabbit hole. There is way too much information to share in a single comment but if you have specific questions or areas you would like me to explain/expand upon, I will be more than happy to.

http://rethinkingaids.com

I'm all for free speech. So go ahead. Get infected with hiv and proof the entire scientific community false. You can do it! I believe in you!

It's already been done bud.

https://youtu.be/tQCKb1JV-4A

Guess you have nothing to add or to refute what I said. Enjoy ignorance as I hear it's bliss.

How do we know that's actually HIV?

Well you can use that argument any time, correct? So how is your example definitive proof one way or another? Whether you believe he did or not, I highly recommend you watch his press conference as it blows the whole HIV/AIDS deception out of the water.

Here, maybe this study and its findings will be more to your liking:

"The results of the world's best scientific study that attempted to measure the efficiency of heterosexual transmission of antibodies to HIV was conducted by Nancy Padian and her colleagues (Padian NS, et al. (1997): Heterosexual transmission of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) in northern California: results from a ten-year study. Am J Epidemiol 146: 350-7).

The most striking result of the ten-year study is that Padian et al. did not observe any HIV-negative sex partners becoming HIV-positive from years of unprotected sexual intercourse with their HIV-positive partners. I repeat—NOT ONE HIV-negative sex partner became positive during the 10- year study. Therefore, the observed transmission efficiency was ZERO.

However, to avoid reporting a zero efficiency for the sexual transmission of HIV, Padian and colleagues assumed that the HIV-positive sex partners in their study must have become positive through sexual intercourse before entering the study. Using that assumption, they estimated that an HIV-negative woman would have to have sexual intercourse 1000 times with HIV-positive men before becoming HIV-positive herself. Even more astounding, HIV-negative men would have to have 8000 sexual contacts before becoming HIV-positive. Virtually identical figures have been reported by others (Gisselquist, D., et al., HIV infections in sub- Saharan Africa not explained by sexual or vertical transmission. Int J STD AIDS, 2002. 13: p. 657-666; Jacquez, J.A., et al., Role of the primary infection in epidemics of HIV infection in gay cohorts. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr, 1994. 7: p. 1169-1184).

Given these figures and that the Centers for Disease Control estimates that one million Americans have antibodies to HIV raises an enormous problem for sexually transmitted HIV. Since there are around 280 million men and women in the USA, that means that on average an HIV- negative woman would have to have random sexual intercourse 140,000 times (and a man eight times that number) in order to become HIV-positive (assuming equal distribution of HIV between the sexes).

Below are additional examples in the literature that neither AIDS nor HIV is sexually transmitted.

None of the husbands of HIV positive women became antibody positive to HIV over a three-year period. (Lancet ii: 581 (1985), Stewart et al.}

No transmission of HIV was observed between couples in which all of the women were HIV positive and in which at least 100 sexual contacts occurred. (JAMA 259: 3037 (1988), Padian et al.)

After a mean of 3-1/2 years of unprotected intercourse, with an average of 50 sexual encounters per year, only one hemophiliac wife became HIV positive. (American Journal of Medicine 85: 472 (1988), Kim et al.)

No transmission of T-cell abnormalities from hemophiliacs with AIDS to their spouses. (JAMA 251: 1450 (1984), Kreiss et al.)

"The number of American and European heterosexuals who have had sexual relations with a prostitute, who have no other admitted risk factors (such as drug abuse), and who have subsequently developed antibody to HIV can be counted on the fingers of one hand. Sex with a prostitute is not even listed as a risk category by the American CDC." (Rethinking AIDS, Root-Bernstein (1993))

"Non-drug abusing prostitutes have no higher risk of AIDS than other women." (AIDS: the second decade, report from the National Academy of Sciences USA (1990))

The same is true for prostitutes in Germany, Zurich, Vienna, London, Paris, Pardenone (Italy), and Athens. (Klinische Wochenschrift 65: 287 (1987), Luthy et al.; Wiener Klinische Wochenschrift 98: 697 (1986), Kopp & Dangl-Erlach; Lancet ii: 1424 (1985), Brenky-Fandeux & Fribourg- Blanc; British Medical Journal 297: 1585 (1988), Day et al.; Scand J Infect Dis 21: 353 (1988), Hyams et al.)

The repeated appearance between AIDS (antibodies to HIV) in drug users around the world is no coincidence (Duesberg, P.H. and D. Rasnick, The AIDS dilemma: drug diseases blamed on a passenger virus. Genetica, 1998. 104: p. 85-132)."

http://www.bmj.com/rapid-response/2011/10/29/sex-has-nothing-do-aids

Is there any proof at all he injected real HIV?

To prove his unorthodox belief that HIV is not the cause of AIDS, a Florida doctor Friday pricked his finger with a needle carrying blood that he said was infected with the virus.

"This is not an act of bravery. This is an act of intelligence," said Dr. Robert Willner, who practiced medicine in North Miami Beach for 30 years until his license was revoked last March.

"I'm not afraid of an innocent virus."

Before a gathering of about 30 alternative-medicine practitioners and several journalists, Willner stuck a needle in the finger of Andres, 27, a Fort Lauderdale student who says he has tested positive for HIV. Then, wincing, the 65-year-old doctor stuck himself.

Willner, who says he also injected himself with HIV-infected blood in Spain a year ago, claims to be one of many scientists who now reject the theory that HIV causes AIDS.

"There is absolutely nothing to substantiate that AIDS is a contagious disease. You cannot get it from anyone. You cannot give it to anyone," Willner said.

Most mainstream doctors and scientists reject his ideas, which are similar to those advanced in recent years by Dr. Peter Duesberg, a molecular biologist from the University of California at Berkeley.

"It is absolute nonsense," said Dr. Charles van der Horst, head of the AIDS clinical trials unit at the UNC-Chapel Hill medical school.

Van der Horst said the theory probably stems partly from "old research" that found that not everyone who had AIDS had detectable virus.

"But that was years ago," he said. "Now, we can find gobs of virus in everybody (who has AIDS)," he said.

He and other skeptics questioned how anyone can be sure that Willner really exchanged blood with an HIV-infected patient.

To check, The Observer called Andres's doctor's office in Fort Lauderdale. A receptionist confirmed that he is a patient and that he is HIV-positive.

http://www.virusmyth.com/aids/hiv/rwcharlotteobs.htm

Okay, I'll take the (other) doctors word for it.

So, given that he died of heart disease shortly thereafter, this really tells us nothing. If he'd gone 20 years, that'd be more convincing.

That is why I supplied you with the 10 year stydy focused on partners with one being "HIV positive" and not a single uninfected partner became "HIV positive" after having unprotected sex together over the course of 10 years.

So if injecting yourself with HIV blood and/or sleeping with someone who is infected doesn't cause you to become infected, that is pretty damning evidence HIV doesn't really exist in the first place.

Hahahaha

Well thought out response. Take care.

Okay but that's just one guy...

It's in the bank's interest to give out as many loans as possible, and have as many people indebted to them as possible.

If global warming is real, do you think the banks and financial industry would give out loans (40yrs example) to low area's?

They do, they just do it at higher rates.

Oceans are not going to rise 10 feet any time soon. Most models and scientists predict we will see roughly a third of that in our lifetime. It will still have detrimental effects to coastal cities. Also, I highly doubt banks would want anything to do with helping displaced Americans because those people are desperate and more likely to default on loans long term. If you are watching conspiracy videos I highly suggest you also look at academic publications.

If you are watching conspiracy videos I highly suggest you also look at academic publications.

Naw man all of academia is in on the conspiracy, I saw it in a youtube video.

Didn’t we legislate something in the 1980’s that allowed banks to loan money to foreign countries, then renovate once they can’t pay, since they could write it off to the FDIC? I think people are forgetting that there are no repercussions to bank failures lol

Don't forget that 'global warming' entered a large percentage of people's conciousness via the film an inconvenient truth.

Which turns outs, is riddled with bullshit.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7037671.stm

But everyone just forgot about that.

I member.

Member climategate?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ydo2Mwnwpac

I member.

Member being told to stop having children to 'save the planet'

https://www.npr.org/2016/08/18/479349760/should-we-be-having-kids-in-the-age-of-climate-change

depopulationagenda

Yeah the world ain't as it seems.

I have never gotten such an angry reaction to even suggesting that Global Warming science was corrupted from virtually anyone I have spoken to.

You can say a lot of things but this one ..wow it's like a religion.

like a religion

Ding ding ding!

That is why I supplied you with the 10 year stydy focused on partners with one being "HIV positive" and not a single uninfected partner became "HIV positive" after having unprotected sex together over the course of 10 years.

So if injecting yourself with HIV blood and/or sleeping with someone who is infected doesn't cause you to become infected, that is pretty damning evidence HIV doesn't really exist in the first place.