- 30 Oct 2023 05:09
#15293416
What we have is competing conspiracy theories.
One thing that people on both sides can agree on is that the other side is part of or dupes of a very large conspiracy.
We have tried to convince people like @Truth to Power with the proof that climate change (CC) is real and caused by humans. People like him call the scientists liars and the research lies.
So, I'm going to try a different tack.
1a] If CC is a conspiracy by many thousands of scientists and all the science journals, then who is running and funding it? It can't be the fossil fuel corps, because they gain by funding the CC deniers, like you.
1b] There have been a few people who have blown the whistle with what they say is evidence of the CC conspiracy. What has happened to them? Did they die mysteriously?
1c] In the late 80s the UN created the UN IPCC. This was supported by Pres. Reagan. Why is the IPCC still pushing CC and in fact saying we must act now or the window to avoid the worst will close in a few years? What would the UN gain by supporting this narrative?
2a] It seems to me that the big oil corps are funding the CC deniers. So, IMHO, there is a legal conspiracy on that side.
2b] It is totally possible that almost all the denying scientists are being well paid to say that.
2c] There are reports that in the 70s the big oil corps funded research into climate change. The resulting reports said that around now the temps would have increased to about the temps we are measuring now. So, they were spot on. What has happened to the people who wrote or leaked those reports? Did they die mysteriously?
AFAIK, nobody on either side has been murdered. It is possible they lost income, but it is also possible they are being paid to say what they are saying. This applies equally to those on both sides.
For me the larger group of scientists wins because the larger a conspiracy the harder and more expensive it is to keep it pretty much secret. AFAIK, my side has over 98% of climate related scientists to under 2% on the side of the deniers. So, 98 to 2 is 49 times more scientists on my side.
So, IMO, my side is far more likely to honestly believe that the reports they publish and the talks they give are the truth as far as they know. And, like I said above, what does the UN gain by keeping the IPCC going?
One thing that people on both sides can agree on is that the other side is part of or dupes of a very large conspiracy.
We have tried to convince people like @Truth to Power with the proof that climate change (CC) is real and caused by humans. People like him call the scientists liars and the research lies.
So, I'm going to try a different tack.
1a] If CC is a conspiracy by many thousands of scientists and all the science journals, then who is running and funding it? It can't be the fossil fuel corps, because they gain by funding the CC deniers, like you.
1b] There have been a few people who have blown the whistle with what they say is evidence of the CC conspiracy. What has happened to them? Did they die mysteriously?
1c] In the late 80s the UN created the UN IPCC. This was supported by Pres. Reagan. Why is the IPCC still pushing CC and in fact saying we must act now or the window to avoid the worst will close in a few years? What would the UN gain by supporting this narrative?
2a] It seems to me that the big oil corps are funding the CC deniers. So, IMHO, there is a legal conspiracy on that side.
2b] It is totally possible that almost all the denying scientists are being well paid to say that.
2c] There are reports that in the 70s the big oil corps funded research into climate change. The resulting reports said that around now the temps would have increased to about the temps we are measuring now. So, they were spot on. What has happened to the people who wrote or leaked those reports? Did they die mysteriously?
AFAIK, nobody on either side has been murdered. It is possible they lost income, but it is also possible they are being paid to say what they are saying. This applies equally to those on both sides.
For me the larger group of scientists wins because the larger a conspiracy the harder and more expensive it is to keep it pretty much secret. AFAIK, my side has over 98% of climate related scientists to under 2% on the side of the deniers. So, 98 to 2 is 49 times more scientists on my side.
So, IMO, my side is far more likely to honestly believe that the reports they publish and the talks they give are the truth as far as they know. And, like I said above, what does the UN gain by keeping the IPCC going?