Adding to that many of the fires were arson. The radio stations will talk about it then they go silent on the topic. No articles talking about the arson incidents outside of the OSINT groups. I am curious if they are trying to avoid copy-cats. It's not just arson, there appear to be some group attacking power sub-stations all over the US as well.
As far as I can tell, entrenched interests (i.e. people/corporations with lots of money) have been down-playing climate catastrophe for decades. The oil companies have certainly put a lot of effort into burying data about human produced CO2 affecting the climate.
I can understand media outlets trying to get clicks based on emphasising any unusual weather, but that doesn't really apply to the actual science-based reports.
As I see it, rich people stand to benefit from down-playing the climate catastrophe and poor people will reap the main down-sides of not being able to afford to live where they want, harvest crops or keep air conditioners running through the day.
I don’t think we really know the truth. It’s a sin to say anything that goes against the consensus. If you say “I disagree with this study and here’s proof of why the numbers don’t add up” you’re instantly flagged as a denier. There’s no more real science being done. The “97% of scientists agree” turned out to be plain old BS. Majority of the scientists were not climate scientists, or said i dont know it makes sense. After publishing a lot of those scientists said their statements were skewed or interpreted wrong.
That's a ridiculous statement with nothing to back it up.
> The “97% of scientists agree” turned out to be plain old BS
Again, you'll need to provide some evidence if you're going to try to dispute the findings of an entire field of science.
You do come across as some kind of denier as you're just throwing around statements with no evidence and to be honest, there's always people like you popping up when there's discussion of climate change and it's annoying because invariably those people are not even scientists themselves, but feel that just reading conspiracy websites makes them into an expert.
So far pretty much every prediction hasn’t panned out. We keep hearing all the bad stuff over and over and over. Taxing us left right and center. And the reality is all this fear mongering is just hurting us more than any warming that is occurring.
Scientists have stated they don’t get funding if they say anything other than we are fucked. When scientists have stated otherwise they are classified as deniers.
This isn’t conspiracy website shit. Unless mainstream media is now considered conspiracy now.
Let’s not forget that they keep telling us about data from 1800 when 1) we haven’t been collecting data that long. And 2) what data was collected used different methods then than today and we can more accurately collect data now that we have to assume was accurate then as we don’t have good data to use. We are talking 2f degrees since 1800 which could be margin of error on the method collected then.
But again when anyone questions this stuff. Denier.
You’re doing it right now.
When models leave data out it makes it look like they are cherry picking. When questioned on somewhere like HN the “experts” try to claim the data is not relevant. Yet another study will include that data and exclude other data and you end up going around in circles. But again. Question anything. Denier.
Seems to me that you're using other people's opinions to colour your view on science. You can do what you want, but don't expect to be taken seriously when there is plenty of quality science over decades by many scientists that don't share your opinions.
> But again when anyone questions this stuff. Denier.
You have presented no evidence whatsoever so you're not exactly questioning the science, but spouting your own opinion. There's a reason that scientists use scientific methods and don't just read an opinion piece on the internet.
If someone didn't agree with physicists' view on how gravity works, but provided no equations or anything substantive to support their view, then they would be shunned as some kind of flat earth believer. That's not due to any kind of conspiracy, but just that it's a complete waste of time trying to pin down exactly what their point is.
10 comments
[ 3.8 ms ] story [ 27.2 ms ] threadAs far as I can tell, entrenched interests (i.e. people/corporations with lots of money) have been down-playing climate catastrophe for decades. The oil companies have certainly put a lot of effort into burying data about human produced CO2 affecting the climate.
I can understand media outlets trying to get clicks based on emphasising any unusual weather, but that doesn't really apply to the actual science-based reports.
As I see it, rich people stand to benefit from down-playing the climate catastrophe and poor people will reap the main down-sides of not being able to afford to live where they want, harvest crops or keep air conditioners running through the day.
That's a ridiculous statement with nothing to back it up.
> The “97% of scientists agree” turned out to be plain old BS
Again, you'll need to provide some evidence if you're going to try to dispute the findings of an entire field of science.
You do come across as some kind of denier as you're just throwing around statements with no evidence and to be honest, there's always people like you popping up when there's discussion of climate change and it's annoying because invariably those people are not even scientists themselves, but feel that just reading conspiracy websites makes them into an expert.
Scientists have stated they don’t get funding if they say anything other than we are fucked. When scientists have stated otherwise they are classified as deniers.
This isn’t conspiracy website shit. Unless mainstream media is now considered conspiracy now.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702303480304579578...
Let’s not forget that they keep telling us about data from 1800 when 1) we haven’t been collecting data that long. And 2) what data was collected used different methods then than today and we can more accurately collect data now that we have to assume was accurate then as we don’t have good data to use. We are talking 2f degrees since 1800 which could be margin of error on the method collected then.
But again when anyone questions this stuff. Denier.
You’re doing it right now.
When models leave data out it makes it look like they are cherry picking. When questioned on somewhere like HN the “experts” try to claim the data is not relevant. Yet another study will include that data and exclude other data and you end up going around in circles. But again. Question anything. Denier.
Science never used to be like that.
> But again when anyone questions this stuff. Denier.
You have presented no evidence whatsoever so you're not exactly questioning the science, but spouting your own opinion. There's a reason that scientists use scientific methods and don't just read an opinion piece on the internet.
If someone didn't agree with physicists' view on how gravity works, but provided no equations or anything substantive to support their view, then they would be shunned as some kind of flat earth believer. That's not due to any kind of conspiracy, but just that it's a complete waste of time trying to pin down exactly what their point is.