Climate science is bad science. The sooner people accept this reality the better.

It's pretty sound science actually. Multiple points of data collection, extreme corroboration between data sets. Physical evidence verifying what is happening.

Now you could make a better argument between anthropomorphic influence and of that is driving climate change or there is a natural cyclical rhythm to hot and cold periods. That could be a real argument.

It’s bad science because it ignores so much pertinent information; weather modification, atmospheric modification.

Not only is all this ignored, it’s done so purposely. This is not science.

It's not ignored. Why do you think they are trying to manipulate the weather?

However they have stronger evidence to suggest other factors as major contributors. Again weather modification is happening, but not on the scale you think.

It is ignored, climate scientists admit as much when asked.

The scale I think? No, the scale that is actually happening and this information is readily available.

The science ignores nearly a century of active weather and atmospheric modification programs and claims to have the answers. This is not how science works.

It is ignored, climate scientists admit as much when asked.

Source on this?

https://youtu.be/V32iTBNoFuE

It’s ‘private sector’ (and government, but undisclosed), they don’t even know what’s happening and don’t bother trying to find out.

I never claimed that science considers it.

It was the other poster, my mistake.

I think it’s the opposite. They aren’t manipulating the weather because of climate change. Thy are using the excuse of climate change in order to manipulate the weather toward some hidden end goal.

some hidden goal

What? there needs to be a rational motive before jumping into arguments. There is no hidden agenda that would be fully supported by (or duping) millions of objective measurements and scientists.

There is atmospheric manipulation. Its been happening for decades. But it is not for some nefarious goal. It is for supporting the ecology of the world and prevent/mitigate another mass extinction event.

The goal isn't hidden. The reward is Currency (power)

Geo-engineering to save humans (not to save the Earth- it'll be just fine)

......is prob a Trillion-dollar racket.

implying humans are the only thing worth saving.

The only argument that can be made is for geo-warfare. That is also happening. BUT it is extremely localized. They do not yet have any way of creating enough energy to manipulate the atmosphere for anything more than a few hundred miles in diameter.

is prob a Trillion-dollar racket. probably is but it doesnt mean its the motive, there is far more money in the preservation of city, animals, farm crops etc. Looking into the funding sources of the research will give you the evidence and help direct what the motive is. I am not convinced at the moment that it is a giant money making scheme outside of weaponized weather to feed a military industrial complex.

"I am not convinced at the moment that it is a giant money making scheme outside of weaponized weather to feed a military industrial complex."

Side by side with you on this.

It is for supporting the ecology of the world and prevent/mitigate another mass extinction event.

And of course for military purposes: http://csat.au.af.mil/2025/volume3/vol3ch15.pdf

as stated in another post. I agree.

“It is for supporting the ecology of the world and prevent / mitigate another mass extinction event.” Lmfao which CIA propaganda arm did that come from? MSM? Social media? Universities? I truly want to know where you heard that claim.

Extreme corroboration! cue rock music

Climate Science is the new religion of the indoctrinated hate filled left.

Oh no, we might learn to live ecologically sound lives where we care for the planet we need to sustain our lives!

Anthropomorphically induced climate change is the lefts arguement, that is up for debate.

Climate change in general is pretty undisputed among a strong majority of scientists from multiple countries and multiple discipline. This is not the conspiracy.

The bigger conspiracy is easily traced to who funds the research for and against the different causes of climate change.

Much like the sugar industry and how they convinced a large population that sugar is not the cause for obesity and major heart disease, oil companies do this on a scale never seen before to prove that it's not harmful to drill, extract and produce.

There is a number of things I recommend you reading on. But pitting right and left against each other is not productive except for garnering fake internet points.

Climate change is a nonsensical term. That’s like saying “we need to fight chronological change or we’re all doomed!”

its not wrong to say that our lives will be impacted if the climate median drifts. there is enough evidence to support mass extinction due to climate change which can dramatically affect the natural food chain. The cause of climate change is up for debate, not climate change itself.

So it’s like saying “every time humans do something, time passes! So let’s all stop our behavior before time makes our species extinct!”

LOL @ "the hate filled left". I live in GOP country, plenty of hate right here. How many hate filled lefties are masturbating to the potential for a new branch of the military called "space force" .

Ever think Global Warming was an attempt by the government to conceal the visible evidence of their weather warfare and Geoengineering programs?

One Conspiracy to Rule Them all ; )

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam_Weishaupt

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S9-e4WOiPcU&feature=share

https://www.cfr.org/membership/membership-roster-a-f

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Mockingbird

Something, some-ting.....parallel narrative

Stop spamming and start a unique discussion.

Not holding your hand. Read. Listen. Exercise your critical thinking muscle.

Stop being the Hall Monitor.

Just giving you a suggestion for how to be more successful at spreading the information you desire. Spamming comments is not the way to do it.

success? hmmmmmm....how would I measure that exactly ; )

Check the percentage of people engaging with you and compare it to the percentage of people telling you to stop.

Ok I def won't do that....but Thanks!

Lol, it isn't Al Gore who made it up.

I am going to wait for an actual scientist to get on this thread and completely crush this. It happens every time I see these Climate Change threads. People come on here all hot and heavy running full steam ahead. Then a scientist gets on, shows them where they are absolutely wrong and they either never respond or deflect to something else.

Agreed. Hey everyone, let’s wait for an “actual scientist.” Of course we don’t want to come to any unapproved conclusions, seeing as how none of have the capability for observation or reason.

Exactly. Control the Narrative.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stratospheric_aerosol_injection_(climate_engineering))

https://www.news.com.au/technology/environment/climate-change/researchers-highlight-warnings-over-controversial-stratospheric-aerosol-injection-idea/news-story/9e04b87f6bc97f1f6f51bf3a5c78a728

If Brenna's even talking about this. It's been going on for DECADES.

https://www.metabunk.org/debunked-cia-director-admits-chemtrails-geoengineering-stratospheric-aerosol-injection.t7721/

Yeah.... you can come to a conclusion based on observation or reason, but a scientist would have background knowledge that would help them come to a different observation. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, then it's a person in a duck suit.

Lmao you just admitted that scientists are biased. An observation is an observation no matter who makes it. If we both observe something and you come to a different conclusion because you were told information by a third party, that’s not scientific. That’s manipulation.

A different observation can come from previous experience.... sure that could be called a 3rd party but I'd believe a doctor over some random person when they try to diagnose me based on symptoms.

I am by no means an expert, but I think where this goes wrong is the assertion that there is a max temperature for the ground. They do not show the equations used and do not cite that number. If they get that number from the black body radiation equaling the energy coming in from the sun (which it seems like) then they forget to take into account other factors such as the ambient temperature being able to raise the "absolute surface temperature". Let's use the analogy they used. If someone were to put on many clothes, then they could overheat and die or even a runner putting on just a tiny bit of insulation. This is because we sit at a core of 98.6f due to heat exchange with our surroundings like the Earth.So in my opinion the article neglects a few factors and uses a terrible analogy.

If they are using Kirchoff's law of emissivity (i.e. blackbody radiation), than the results are not going to reflect reality. The LOE has been proven invalid, Pierre Marie Robitalle (the man who created modern MRI machines) has many papers proving what I stated. He even has a youtube chanel "Sky Scholar" where he shows why it's invalid with simple experiments.