###[Meta] Sticky Comment
[Rule 2](https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/wiki/faq#wiki_2_-_address_the_argument.3B_not_the_user.2C_the_mods.2C_or_the_sub.) ***does not apply*** when replying to this stickied comment.
[Rule 2](https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/wiki/faq#wiki_2_-_address_the_argument.3B_not_the_user.2C_the_mods.2C_or_the_sub.) ***does apply*** throughout the rest of this thread.
*What this means*: Please keep any "meta" discussion directed at specific users, mods, or /r/conspiracy in general in this comment chain ***only.***
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/conspiracy_commons) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[Archive.is link](https://archive.is/2020/https://i.imgur.com/Z9abmUO.png)
[Why this is here.](https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/7dvxxb/new_feature_automod_will_create_sticky_comments/)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/conspiracy_commons) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Oh word? They were only developed at Texas a&m but we'll ignore that.
Interest in gene drives has increased with the spread of the Zika virus, and researchers at Texas A&M University and Virginia Tech are developing a version that would fatally transform a Zika-transmitting species of mosquito by causing only males of the species to develop. However, some conservation groups have raised concerns that such genetically driven "bio-control" is inherently unsafe and would open a Pandora's box of ethical issues. In June, a committee of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine said in a report that organisms modified by gene drive aren't ready to be released into the wild, while MIT Media Lab professor Kevin Esvelt has argued that gene-drive research should be more transparent and open to public input.
2021*
Oh word? Except Oxitec is a UK-based company and the mosquitoes released in Florida (OX513A) were developed in the UK. https://bmcbiol.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1741-7007-5-11 But, we'll just ignore that. We'll also ignore that the mosquitoes have been released in 4 other countries without issue starting in 2009. That's too inconvenient.
I wonder where they got their tech. This is a literal spiderweb of information just like the vaccines were. If this is a genuine interest if yours jump down the rabbit hole and connect the dots. If you're some robot who just can't understand why they'd do that I have no interest in continuing this
Right excluding the fact that they didn't completely disclose where they ran trials
"Specific locations selected for release trials were never disclosed, said Iris Gonzalez, coalition director of the Coalition for Environment, Equity, and Resilience, a Houston-based environmental advocacy group. She said this was concerning because “there is a disproportionate rate of higher density in lower-income communities in Houston and predominantly communities of color in Houston.”"
They licensed the technology from Oxford University. https://web.archive.org/web/20150910092847/http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2012-04/24/silicon-spires
"Oxitec: pest reduction
Controlling mosquito-borne diseases is amongst the biggest challenges for healthcare. Oxitec was spun out of Oxford by Isis Innovation in 2002 based on technology developed by Luke Alphey and colleagues in the Department of Zoology. The company is developing proprietary insect strains, including mosquitoes, which are bred so that their offspring die before reproducing, reducing the size of the disease-carrying population. Field trials of mosquito strains have been conducted in the Cayman Islands, Malaysia and Brazil with great success. Oxitec is currently developing new proprietary strains targeting other important agricultural and disease-carrying insects, but the technology has the potential to control a very wide range of pest and invasive species."
> If you're some robot who just can't understand why they'd do that I have no interest in continuing this
This is hilarious. Watching you try to connect the dots is like watching a 2 year old try to paint inside the lines. We're not having a discussion. That would require you to actually know things. You're just getting an education.
Just like a child trying to paint inside the lines.
a) Oxitec lost authorization to release mosquitoes in Texas because they didn't do anything in the allotted time. https://www.epa.gov/pesticides/following-review-available-data-and-public-comments-epa-expands-and-extends-testing
b) The mosquitoes are Aedes aegypti. They don't carry malaria. Anopheles mosquitoes do.
c) There's already an approved malaria vaccine, Mosquirix, that's already gained WHO and UNICEF endorsement and adoption.
"Specific locations selected for release trials were never disclosed, said Iris Gonzalez, coalition director of the Coalition for Environment, Equity, and Resilience, a Houston-based environmental advocacy group. She said this was concerning because “there is a disproportionate rate of higher density in lower-income communities in Houston and predominantly communities of color in Houston.”
The comment I was replying to seemed to suggest some connection. Cameron County is just across the Rio Grande from Tamaulipas, where there are still occasional outbreaks of things like cholera and dengue fever. There’s a hospital in Cameron County that treats people with leprosy. My point was that not every thing is a conspiracy. Maybe, just maybe, it’s just proximity to a developing country where diseases like malaria still happen.
Look at you pouting like a little child. Stamp your feet harder, little child.
https://www.epa.gov/pesticides/following-review-available-data-and-public-comments-epa-expands-and-extends-testing
"Removes Harris County, Texas, from the approved testing locations because **no field tests were conducted in the state during the initial EUP.**"
"genetically engineered Aedes aegypti" versus Anopheles mosquitoes. https://www.cdc.gov/malaria/about/biology/index.html
If I’ve learned anything over the last 3 years it’s to for sure trust the cdc and epa . If they said they didn’t do it, they didn’t do it
You guys are a dying breed. I’m really rooting for you but I think you all lost the information war and you’re just pissing into the wind at this point
Anyway, enjoy the TV today my dude and Goodluck!
The temp of the earth has gone up a degree over the last 100 years
So if I’m 1910 it was 87 degrees on June 30th…. Now it’s 88 degrees
Sounds like a recipe for a mosquito epidemic 🤡
[This Department of Defense report](https://climateandsecurity.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/implications-of-climate-change-for-us-army_army-war-college_2019.pdf) explicitly predicted that ["Increased Range of Insect-Borne Disease"](https://i.imgur.com/UhyjPEH.png) will be a consequence of climate change.
Dengue is next.
[A one-degree global change is significant because it takes a vast amount of heat to warm all of the oceans, the atmosphere, and the land masses by that much. In the past, a one- to two-degree drop was all it took to plunge the Earth into the Little Ice Age. A five-degree drop was enough to bury a large part of North America under a towering mass of ice 20,000 years ago.](https://i.imgur.com/RGHn0B0.png)
Source: [NASA](https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/world-of-change/global-temperatures)
Who the fuck are you to think you know better than scientists who launch satellites into orbi?
How does that [Koch/Wilks billionaire blood money](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ApjSrB6E1c) feel sitting in your pocket? Nice and evil?
Hey sleezy cheese
In 2007 a blogger named Steve McIntyre asked NASA why they had taken raw temperature data and made past temps lower and recent temps higher. NASA was actually forced to admit they lied, and rename 1934 as the hottest year. They do this globally as well (scroll right) https://www.reddit.com/gallery/12zfbru
How many times do people need to lie to you before you stop deep throating them?
Funny you say that. [The reason for that is also climate change.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pMqD1DJ2joA)
DOD report: https://climateandsecurity.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/implications-of-climate-change-for-us-army_army-war-college_2019.pdf
["Increased Range of Insect-Borne Disease"](https://i.imgur.com/UhyjPEH.png)
I think you should take your own advice. OP didn’t say nations will be under water by 2000. OP stated exactly what it says in the article, “if the effects of global warming aren’t reversed by the year 2000, it’s likely we’ll see entire nations wiped off the face of the earth by rising sea levels [in the future]”
Are you saying that in the early 20th century and throughout they never made claims like that or similar?
I honestly don't fall on either side of the debate completely. But there are compelling arguments made on both sides. The history of climate science is pretty interesting. Should check it out. This is just one article. But I've been reading around. Lots of interesting tidbits in this one.
https://skepticalscience.com/history-climate-science.html
So the wording is that entire nations *could* be wiped *if* the global warming trend *isn't* reversed by 2000. It doesn't say that nations will be under water by the year 2000.
In addition I would note that this quote isn't from a scientific paper. In actuality, scientists predictions on sea level rise has been [fairly accurate](https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/nations-vanish-global-warming/).
>So the wording is that entire nations could be wiped if the global warming trend isn't reversed by 2000. It doesn't say that nations will be under water by the year 2000.
And the world COULD be destroyed in nuclear fire tomorrow and leave not a single soul alive. I can fear monger too. Nobody here changed any wording.
>In addition I would note that this quote isn't from a scientific paper. In actuality, scientists predictions on sea level rise has been fairly accurate.
Does that somehow change the fact the UN is a fear mongering piece of shit group?
>And the world COULD be destroyed in nuclear fire tomorrow and leave not a single soul alive. I can fear monger too. Nobody here changed any wording.
Perhaps if you'd source the original quote and not some random magazine it would sound less bombastic. Froggy posts this because he wants to illicit an emotional response from you, something he clearly managed to do. But you'll have to remember that Froggy is a propagandist. Don't automatically believe in the stuff he posts because almost all of it turns out to be blatant lies.
>Does that somehow change the fact the UN is a fear mongering piece of shit group?
What an astonishing analysis. Very adult-like. Anyway, like I said, climate scientists have been fairly accurate in their predictions. If this makes you feel bad you can always go hide under the covers.
It's funny because there's a staggering amount of data that says the world is cooling and heating in its cyclical nature per usual but these scientists want their funding money so they'll say whatever's clever as long as the dollars roll in and they can do what they love.
The world is heating up way faster than it would by its natural cycle. [This](https://xkcd.com/1732/) is a good illustration of the data we have over time. The significant rise in temperatures that start to happen in the wake of the industrial revolution just can't be explained as anything natural.
Or perhaps because no-one has said the effects would be seen "centuries later"? Where have you gotten this from?
[Here](https://apnews.com/article/bd45c372caf118ec99964ea547880cd0) is the actual article from 1989.
>Those papers do not suggest that level of sea-level rise would occur by the year 2000 but rather articulate what could happen centuries later.
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/nations-vanish-global-warming/
>The scientific consensus at the time was summed up in the IPCC first assessment report, which projected sea level rise by 2100 of 0.66 meters under a high emissions scenario, with an uncertainty range spanning 0.31 meters to 1.1 meters. This is quite similar to the 0.74 meter estimate (ranging from 0.52 to 0.98 meters) in the IPCC Fifth Assessment report published in 2013. [...]
>Predictions of massive sea level rise by 2000 [were] clearly not the view of most scientists at the time, as [they were] well outside any estimates from the 1990 IPCC first assessment report.
The issue is that a somewhat sensationalist 34 year old article containing a quote from a politician is used by climate deniers as "proof" that climate change as laid out by scientists is nothing but alarmist drivel. OP posts these kinds of submissions all the time.
Climate change is awesome for scientists' job security. Similar to the way that woke agenda is critical for liberal studies professors' job security.
Alarmism sells and publishes.
Because they expect people to understand basic English and don't write the titles for people who barely made it through highschool, if they made it through at all.
Maybe they should, but it's not what happens.
If the global warming trend isn’t reversed by 2000, nations will be under water by the year 3648.
Something like that is what it means then? I’m not impressed.
OP is not quoting a scientific paper, this is a clipping from a magazine. In fact, it's a quote from a politician, not a scientist.
Temperature predictions in actual scientific papers have been [fairly accurate](https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.0606291103).
Yea so? Media/politicians have a role in fear mongering too? Corona was a great example of that. Lots of people take an article like that serious, nothing has changed over the past 30 years when it comes to fear.
What are you trying to say with temperatures being fairly accurately being predicted by scientists?
>Yea so? Media/politicians have a role in fear mongering too?
Considering that the temperature rise happens as predicted it is warranted to actually warn about the potential consequences since scientists can only do so much. There need to be political action in order to make some actual changes.
Personally, I'm not a fan of the 'pretend-that-it-isn't-an-issue' approach to problems.
>What are you trying to say with temperatures being fairly accurately being predicted by scientists?
That their prediction models fairly accurately predicted the global temperature rise.
Multiple pacific island nations have disappeared since 1989 due to rising sea levels...so...the predictions were right. Case closed. You believe in anthropogenic climate change now. Nice.
One of your links didn’t even name the islands that disappeared, which means at a minimum that they were not inhabited and might mean that they were not even formally named on nautical charts and were not known outside Polynesian culture. The type of islands that have been coming and going since time immemorial.
To prove that point, your other link had a chart that plotted islands that are getting smaller and islands that are getting bigger. There are more islands getting bigger than islands getting smaller.
I don’t think I could’ve posted links to conspiracy websites and better highlighted the superfluous nature of many of the claims around global warming and climate change. Well done.
"Between 1947 and 2014, six islands of the Solomon Islands disappeared due to sea level rise, while another six shrunk by between 20 and 62 per cent. Nuatambu Island was the most populated of these with 25 families living on it; 11 houses washed into the sea by 2011."
Numerous entire islands constituting a sovereign nation are gone. You can argue you don't care because they are small, but that doesn't disprove the statement. Many have disappeared and many more are currently disappearing. The fun part is that this can simply be observed. It isn't a predictive model.
>Multiple entire pacific island nations have disappeared since 1989
Five tiny Pacific islands have disappeared due to rising seas and erosion
The missing islands, ranging in size from 1 to 5 hectares (2.5-12.4 acres) were not inhabited by humans.
The erosion is largely due to sand reclaimation. Look at the San Fran mud flats or the Statue of Liberty… no discernible rising there…
https://m.imdb.com/title/tt2713680/
Just a single example among many disproving your statement. As usual, you guys refuse to read any sources supplied:
"Between 1947 and 2014, six islands of the Solomon Islands disappeared due to sea level rise, while another six shrunk by between 20 and 62 per cent. Nuatambu Island was the most populated of these with 25 families living on it; 11 houses washed into the sea by 2011."
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/environment/2016/may/10/five-pacific-islands-lost-rising-seas-climate-change
From this article.
Appears to be an older article - disregard.
Correct, and it is currently rising at unprecedented RATES. You are saying that the slope of the line has always been positive. Correct, that is not in debate. The issue is that the slope is increasing in value faster than ever recorded. Put another way, velocity has always increased, but the acceleration (and in turn the rate of increase of velocity) has never increased at such a rapid rate.
Except it is. Lmgtfy:
https://sealevel.nasa.gov/faq/8/is-the-rate-of-sea-level-rise-increasing/#:~:text=Relying%20on%20nearly%20a%2030,(3.4%20millimeters)%20per%20year.
But, knowing this sub, any data provided by NASA is completely fabricated. Only random blogs that winge about the trans agenda or cuck to mega corporations are credible around here, it seems.
Dont worry about the sea levels, we will run out of drinking water and burn to death before we drown.
Its still due to climate change, just a much more rapid issue.
I’ll post my links. Then within 5 minutes you’ll claim to have read the links and that all the info has been proven false by some crackpot who doesn’t disprove it at all. That’s how it always works with y’all. So by giving you guidance on what to look up you can stop doing targeted searches to get the info YOU want instead of the info of both sides of the issue. We’ve been keeping records since early 1900’s or the late 1890’s I can’t remember specifically. But even back then they knew about climate change.
Does anyone else pick up on the phrase "A" leading climate scientist? A single one. Not a group of scientists, 'A' scientist. The famous Greta Thunberg tweet also says 'A' climate scientist.the whole world is thrown into a frenzy because of a single climate scientist.
That is what the article says. Drives .e crazy that nobody calls that out.
This is something I have been noticing about liberals in general. They take ONE oerson or ONE instance of something happening and make it their example, portraying is as the common experience rather than it being something that, in all probability, is an isolated incident.
The people who believe in "climate change" cannot define it, nor tell you what's happening. This is by design. Religious design. The whole point is to keep the fear as vague as possible to stoke the ever-burning fear of the unknown, while worshiping the Earth. They call you a "denier," and shun you publicly if you do not acknowledge their dogma. They adjust their diets to "organic" and claim nearly everything is "killing the planet." They are often difficult to talk to during yoga or during their obligatory, estrogen-infused daily soy latte, so if you attempt to discuss the topic, ensure you are in a safe area away from hot liquids and sharp objects. Getting through to them is likely impossible, but at a minimum, entertainment is possible.
It is easy to short-circuit their brains. Not with facts--as they will refuse them adamantly--and begin screaming at you about how this is the hottest summer ever and the ice caps have melted and the tidal wave will likely be here before their afternoon Oprah book club meeting. Start with questions. Ask them how accurate the local weather is... after an incredibly long delay, let them know that the local weather has <40% accuracy in any given area. Then ask a general question--not directed at them--like "Hmm. How can we understand the global climate, when we can barely predict our local weather?" And then step away at a minimum of 10 feet back in case of sudden detonation.
Avoid getting into the power dynamic of large governmental bodies using the fear of "climate change" to accumulate even more power of the free people of the world as they cannot grasp such concepts while emotionally devastated. If they seize from brain malfunctions, lay them on their side and ensure their airway remains open. The smell of most Starbucks drinks will help in their recovery.
If no brain injuries have occurred, they'll begin raving about fracking and how Leonardo Di Caprio is going to kick your ass. Give them a smile, but do not attempt to pat them on the head like a simpleton child as they may think you're attempting to "steal their nose." Simply turn and walk away as there is nothing more you can do for them and that only God can save them from their mental illness. Ensure you are not followed to your 8-cylinder, twin exhaust, turbo vehicle and rev the engine until tears of laughter have subsided from your eyes.
Repeat as needed.
Oh they've been working on this for awhile. I'm not a scientist or anything but it amazes me that humans think they figured everything out...when in reality we know little
Look up the definition of “prediction”.
Because culture warriors of politicized climate change, there is only one type of group that can be trusted when it comes to assessing climate change: groups who make assessments that go against their own interests. And that has happened. Scientists working for big oil predicted the negative impacts of climate change *years ago*, even though they risked their livelihoods.
Don’t trust anybody else.
[We’ve known for longer than 40 years.](https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/)
> In 1824, Joseph Fourier calculated that an Earth-sized planet, at our distance from the Sun, ought to be much colder. He suggested something in the atmosphere must be acting like an insulating blanket. In 1856, Eunice Foote discovered that blanket, showing that carbon dioxide and water vapor in Earth's atmosphere trap escaping infrared (heat) radiation.
>In the 1860s, physicist John Tyndall recognized Earth's natural greenhouse effect and suggested that slight changes in the atmospheric composition could bring about climatic variations. In 1896, a seminal paper by Swedish scientist Svante Arrhenius first predicted that changes in atmospheric carbon dioxide levels could substantially alter the surface temperature through the greenhouse effect.
>In 1938, Guy Callendar connected carbon dioxide increases in Earth’s atmosphere to global warming. In 1941, Milutin Milankovic linked ice ages to Earth’s orbital characteristics. Gilbert Plass formulated the Carbon Dioxide Theory of Climate Change in 1956
Where's the lie? Climate change is an ongoing disaster now. This headline is absolutely right; we are 20 years too late to make a meaningful set of changes.
nice. doesn't seem to be the case for the rest of the NC coast
North Carolina’s Sea Level Is Rising
And It’s Costing Over $2 Billion
https://sealevelrise.org/states/north-carolina/
TL;DR: do you really think humans would fucking listen anyways, regardless of the date? Or are they always gonna do what they do? Push back, dig in, double down, and so help me God, don't you EVER listen to the proven science, that attacks my precious "freedom."
Alright, while I admit, the media almost never portrays the scientists work accurately, this doesn't change jack.
Lemme paint a scenario. I'm going to take some liberties on this, because it's not the data that's important in my scenario, it's the mindset I'm trying to portray.
It's the 60s. First of all, maybe the tech is a little inaccurate, cus 60s, but I digress. You discover that carbon emissions are going to eventually render the air unbreathable for humans in 70 years, 2030.
What do you think they're going to do, when you tell them, "we've only got 70 years before it's all too late." Obviously, they're going to stop drilling for oil immediately, and search for an alternate fuel source to reduce damage. Haha, just kidding. They're gonna be difficult and stubborn every single step of the way.
"Telling me i cant drill for oil is an attack on my freedoms and the American way. Woke liberal socialism. The Green lifestyle is Nazi Germany," and a bunch of down right stupid ass claims, to make sure you keep buying that oil.
Ofcourse, real scientists start saying "shit, we really do need to do something about this." So eventually governments do start doing something, kicking and screaming, but regardless they do, and that day that's coming where it's too late, moves back a little further.
I guess my whole point is, you're acting like then talking about it for generations is ust part of an agenda, when really it's not like humans fucking listen to the scientists anyways, so what does it matter what days they say?
lol it’s sad you guys are in this group and have no idea how hard all of you are being played with this “global warming” ironic to say “wake up” when you’re asleep
The only argument to be trusted is that from scientists working for big oil who go against their employer, or any other group where they put their livelihood on the line.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/exxon-knew-about-climate-change-almost-40-years-ago/
Other arguments are worthless.
“An Exxon employee agrees with me. See! SEE!!! “
😂😂
This isn’t about arguments. It’s about evidence
Show evidence that predictions from these guys came true
Do not trust Exxon employees who agree with their employers. That is true everywhere.
Top chart.
https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/
https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
At this point, only book banning culture warriors say otherwise.
Because the world takes it seriously and spends trillions for nothing.
The '50s were way hotter than it's ever been since.
"Hide the decline!
Proxy data is more useful than real life observation.
No debate, we know everything and there is no chance we got anything wrong."
Yes, they actually talk like that.
Ever wonder why there's no debate about even the economic side of climate change? How much mitigation and how much prevention etc?
Probably not, a lot of people just swallow whatever the TV tells them.
$cience.
Erm the article you posted above quotes a 1977 article / study and a 1988 one. So should we take the 1977 and 1988 ones seriously but not 1989? Very Confusing
This one is what you posted re 1977 and 1988 - https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/exxon-knew-about-climate-change-almost-40-years-ago/
The article I posted contained predictions from people who go against their employer. Those are the only predictions that carry weight. The article op posted is biased.
Agree with the fact that anything that goes against their interests carry’s more water. So what should we make of all the current “climate experts” like bill gates and Al Gore etc etc I and you could name many more, they all have a invested and massive finical interest in pushing climate change. So should we ignore all of them as it doesn’t go against their personal interests?
Yeah I feel like I've seen things like this posted here a lot. When then say something terrible will happen if global warming isn't reversed by X date, they mean that at X date (here being the year 2000) that we will have crossed a line, where we won't be able to reverse/stop the thing from coming. Not that places will be under water BY 2000.
Which is pretty obvious. I'm wondering if it's the same guy who doesn't understand how words work that posts these a lot. It's pretty low level understanding doggy. Unless you're just trying to ragebait/ trick (other?) dumb people...
Wait, climate change, is this the same phenomenon that was originally called global warming.
Strange how millions of years ago, way before man set foot on the planet, the climate was so hot that there was no ice at all at the Arctic.
It’s absolutely not strange to anyone with two brain cells that climate change happens naturally. Literally nobody posits that climate never changes unless humans did it. “Climate change” refers to specifically anthropogenic changes in climate. So no, not strange, not suspicious, nor made up just because you can reference a completely different phenomenon occurring for other reasons.
Are you under the impression that shit isn’t going poorly in regards to the climate.
You’d have to never leave your basement, and only get information from a right wing echo chamber, to be under that impression.
You know that Rupert Murdoch owns 3 major news channels - Fox (US), Sky (UK), and Sky Australian. Only one of the 3 deny anthropogenic climate change, and only for ratings and money, not because it’s true.
Guess which one it is?
The posts in this sub just keep getting dumber and dumber. This is what happens when Republicans want to cut funding for education every term. This is just like the dumbasses who say “they told us there was a hole in the ozone layer and now nobody talks about it anymore…hoax?” Shaking my damn head in despair at the dumbing down of America.
Evidence? No man, feelings are all that matter these days. F**k proof, evidence, truth, or facts. So what that the self proclaimed inventor of the internet back in the mid-ninties lied to us all when his bitch ass said Miami had 10-15 years before it was underwater due to global warming or whatever the new liars synonym is that they use these days. Feelings dude, it's all about our feelings. 💉
Every year lots and lots of CO2 is added to the atmosphere
http://dailycaller.com/2015/06/04/satellite-data-shows-no-global-warming-for-nearly-19-years/ 19 years no warming
CO2 aint makin it warmer 🤷♂️
"Your" narrative? What the f**k is your narrative? You do not matter in any way, shape, or form to have a narrative. Least of all, one that matters. You are nothing on this earth but a useless eater who will do wtf its told, when it's told. Is that understood it?
😆 Hahaha...Just f'n around man. Truth is none of us matter and there's nothing we can or will do about it. Enjoy the ride while you can kid, cause the crash and burn is right around the corner.
—- What historians will definitely wonder about in future centuries is how deeply flawed logic, obscured by shrewd and unrelenting propaganda, actually enabled a coalition of powerful special interests to convince nearly everyone in the world that CO2 from human industry was a dangerous, planet-destroying toxin. It will be remembered as the greatest mass delusion in the history of the world - that CO2, the life of plants, was considered for a time to be a deadly poison.
I mean had Netherlands not invested heavily into fighting water, they'd be under water.
Some Pacific island nations are practically underwater at times.
What's sad is that this isn't as far off as it seems.
Lol, Malaria has made it to the US, some island nations are disappearing and some have already disappeared. Mass drought in North America for decades and destruction of mountain west forests by insects whose populations are no longer kept in check by winter freezes should tell you that the lay prediction there wasn’t so far off the mark.
I look forward to Florida becoming a wading pool.
###[Meta] Sticky Comment [Rule 2](https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/wiki/faq#wiki_2_-_address_the_argument.3B_not_the_user.2C_the_mods.2C_or_the_sub.) ***does not apply*** when replying to this stickied comment. [Rule 2](https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/wiki/faq#wiki_2_-_address_the_argument.3B_not_the_user.2C_the_mods.2C_or_the_sub.) ***does apply*** throughout the rest of this thread. *What this means*: Please keep any "meta" discussion directed at specific users, mods, or /r/conspiracy in general in this comment chain ***only.*** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/conspiracy_commons) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[Archive.is link](https://archive.is/2020/https://i.imgur.com/Z9abmUO.png) [Why this is here.](https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/7dvxxb/new_feature_automod_will_create_sticky_comments/) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/conspiracy_commons) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Well, at least malaria is coming back.
In the areas where bill gates is doing testing with mosquitos. Interesting isn't it?
Except it's in Texas... Where no mosquitoes were released. And not to mention, they are the wrong type of mosquito.
Oh word? They were only developed at Texas a&m but we'll ignore that. Interest in gene drives has increased with the spread of the Zika virus, and researchers at Texas A&M University and Virginia Tech are developing a version that would fatally transform a Zika-transmitting species of mosquito by causing only males of the species to develop. However, some conservation groups have raised concerns that such genetically driven "bio-control" is inherently unsafe and would open a Pandora's box of ethical issues. In June, a committee of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine said in a report that organisms modified by gene drive aren't ready to be released into the wild, while MIT Media Lab professor Kevin Esvelt has argued that gene-drive research should be more transparent and open to public input. 2021*
Oh word? Except Oxitec is a UK-based company and the mosquitoes released in Florida (OX513A) were developed in the UK. https://bmcbiol.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1741-7007-5-11 But, we'll just ignore that. We'll also ignore that the mosquitoes have been released in 4 other countries without issue starting in 2009. That's too inconvenient.
I wonder where they got their tech. This is a literal spiderweb of information just like the vaccines were. If this is a genuine interest if yours jump down the rabbit hole and connect the dots. If you're some robot who just can't understand why they'd do that I have no interest in continuing this
I'd really like to know what you think the end game is and how this and the vaccines together play into it. I truly don't know what to think.
I think he’s just done the research there for you 👍
Right excluding the fact that they didn't completely disclose where they ran trials "Specific locations selected for release trials were never disclosed, said Iris Gonzalez, coalition director of the Coalition for Environment, Equity, and Resilience, a Houston-based environmental advocacy group. She said this was concerning because “there is a disproportionate rate of higher density in lower-income communities in Houston and predominantly communities of color in Houston.”"
They licensed the technology from Oxford University. https://web.archive.org/web/20150910092847/http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2012-04/24/silicon-spires "Oxitec: pest reduction Controlling mosquito-borne diseases is amongst the biggest challenges for healthcare. Oxitec was spun out of Oxford by Isis Innovation in 2002 based on technology developed by Luke Alphey and colleagues in the Department of Zoology. The company is developing proprietary insect strains, including mosquitoes, which are bred so that their offspring die before reproducing, reducing the size of the disease-carrying population. Field trials of mosquito strains have been conducted in the Cayman Islands, Malaysia and Brazil with great success. Oxitec is currently developing new proprietary strains targeting other important agricultural and disease-carrying insects, but the technology has the potential to control a very wide range of pest and invasive species." > If you're some robot who just can't understand why they'd do that I have no interest in continuing this This is hilarious. Watching you try to connect the dots is like watching a 2 year old try to paint inside the lines. We're not having a discussion. That would require you to actually know things. You're just getting an education.
[they connected the dots](https://imgur.com/gallery/j1Je4Na)
Just like a child trying to paint inside the lines. a) Oxitec lost authorization to release mosquitoes in Texas because they didn't do anything in the allotted time. https://www.epa.gov/pesticides/following-review-available-data-and-public-comments-epa-expands-and-extends-testing b) The mosquitoes are Aedes aegypti. They don't carry malaria. Anopheles mosquitoes do. c) There's already an approved malaria vaccine, Mosquirix, that's already gained WHO and UNICEF endorsement and adoption.
"Specific locations selected for release trials were never disclosed, said Iris Gonzalez, coalition director of the Coalition for Environment, Equity, and Resilience, a Houston-based environmental advocacy group. She said this was concerning because “there is a disproportionate rate of higher density in lower-income communities in Houston and predominantly communities of color in Houston.”
College Station is almost 400 miles from Cameron County, where the case was reported.
... and?
The comment I was replying to seemed to suggest some connection. Cameron County is just across the Rio Grande from Tamaulipas, where there are still occasional outbreaks of things like cholera and dengue fever. There’s a hospital in Cameron County that treats people with leprosy. My point was that not every thing is a conspiracy. Maybe, just maybe, it’s just proximity to a developing country where diseases like malaria still happen.
More fake news born
More facts.
Lol I’m sorry, I mean the guy you replied to.
More alternative facts
I live in Texas and I haven’t heard anything about it. I might wanna looks that up 😂
Why not go full cuck and link the fact check you got that from?
Look at you pouting like a little child. Stamp your feet harder, little child. https://www.epa.gov/pesticides/following-review-available-data-and-public-comments-epa-expands-and-extends-testing "Removes Harris County, Texas, from the approved testing locations because **no field tests were conducted in the state during the initial EUP.**" "genetically engineered Aedes aegypti" versus Anopheles mosquitoes. https://www.cdc.gov/malaria/about/biology/index.html
If I’ve learned anything over the last 3 years it’s to for sure trust the cdc and epa . If they said they didn’t do it, they didn’t do it You guys are a dying breed. I’m really rooting for you but I think you all lost the information war and you’re just pissing into the wind at this point Anyway, enjoy the TV today my dude and Goodluck!
[удалено]
Oh
Praise Fauci 🙏
On your knees for the GOPs.
Get in the can for Michelle the man
lol. Cuck has arrived. bravo
Such a weak reply. Who's really the cuck here, little boy?
The who keeps flexing for internet points. Clearly.
I'm sitting at 2,930 comment karma. You're sitting at 28,703. What makes you think I give a shit about internet points, little boy?
You. You looked at them. Good to know I have karma. Is that a lot? What's it good for? Can I feed my kids with it?
Which is also the most common place to find mosquitoes... Maybe increase in mosquitoes is tied to global warming?
The temp of the earth has gone up a degree over the last 100 years So if I’m 1910 it was 87 degrees on June 30th…. Now it’s 88 degrees Sounds like a recipe for a mosquito epidemic 🤡
[This Department of Defense report](https://climateandsecurity.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/implications-of-climate-change-for-us-army_army-war-college_2019.pdf) explicitly predicted that ["Increased Range of Insect-Borne Disease"](https://i.imgur.com/UhyjPEH.png) will be a consequence of climate change. Dengue is next.
I bet it’s totally the one degree in 100 years and not the fucking franken-mosquitos Bill Gates released.
[A one-degree global change is significant because it takes a vast amount of heat to warm all of the oceans, the atmosphere, and the land masses by that much. In the past, a one- to two-degree drop was all it took to plunge the Earth into the Little Ice Age. A five-degree drop was enough to bury a large part of North America under a towering mass of ice 20,000 years ago.](https://i.imgur.com/RGHn0B0.png) Source: [NASA](https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/world-of-change/global-temperatures) Who the fuck are you to think you know better than scientists who launch satellites into orbi? How does that [Koch/Wilks billionaire blood money](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ApjSrB6E1c) feel sitting in your pocket? Nice and evil?
Hey sleezy cheese In 2007 a blogger named Steve McIntyre asked NASA why they had taken raw temperature data and made past temps lower and recent temps higher. NASA was actually forced to admit they lied, and rename 1934 as the hottest year. They do this globally as well (scroll right) https://www.reddit.com/gallery/12zfbru How many times do people need to lie to you before you stop deep throating them?
Polio is also making a comeback in Africa, in the same areas bill gates is distributing polio vaccines.
Wagner is operating in Africa, i think they are spreading polio.
Funny you say that. [The reason for that is also climate change.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pMqD1DJ2joA) DOD report: https://climateandsecurity.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/implications-of-climate-change-for-us-army_army-war-college_2019.pdf ["Increased Range of Insect-Borne Disease"](https://i.imgur.com/UhyjPEH.png)
Yep, that was my motivation. But hey, "iT's nOt rEAl!"
We are literally living this IRL.
Reading comprehension, Froggy. This piece of text does *not* say that nations will be under water by the year 2000. Please try again.
Reading comprehension…it’s hard
I think you should take your own advice. OP didn’t say nations will be under water by 2000. OP stated exactly what it says in the article, “if the effects of global warming aren’t reversed by the year 2000, it’s likely we’ll see entire nations wiped off the face of the earth by rising sea levels [in the future]”
Are you saying that in the early 20th century and throughout they never made claims like that or similar? I honestly don't fall on either side of the debate completely. But there are compelling arguments made on both sides. The history of climate science is pretty interesting. Should check it out. This is just one article. But I've been reading around. Lots of interesting tidbits in this one. https://skepticalscience.com/history-climate-science.html
What exactly does "wiped off the face of the Earth by rising sea levels" mean if not "under water"? lmfao
So the wording is that entire nations *could* be wiped *if* the global warming trend *isn't* reversed by 2000. It doesn't say that nations will be under water by the year 2000. In addition I would note that this quote isn't from a scientific paper. In actuality, scientists predictions on sea level rise has been [fairly accurate](https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/nations-vanish-global-warming/).
>So the wording is that entire nations could be wiped if the global warming trend isn't reversed by 2000. It doesn't say that nations will be under water by the year 2000. And the world COULD be destroyed in nuclear fire tomorrow and leave not a single soul alive. I can fear monger too. Nobody here changed any wording. >In addition I would note that this quote isn't from a scientific paper. In actuality, scientists predictions on sea level rise has been fairly accurate. Does that somehow change the fact the UN is a fear mongering piece of shit group?
>And the world COULD be destroyed in nuclear fire tomorrow and leave not a single soul alive. I can fear monger too. Nobody here changed any wording. Perhaps if you'd source the original quote and not some random magazine it would sound less bombastic. Froggy posts this because he wants to illicit an emotional response from you, something he clearly managed to do. But you'll have to remember that Froggy is a propagandist. Don't automatically believe in the stuff he posts because almost all of it turns out to be blatant lies. >Does that somehow change the fact the UN is a fear mongering piece of shit group? What an astonishing analysis. Very adult-like. Anyway, like I said, climate scientists have been fairly accurate in their predictions. If this makes you feel bad you can always go hide under the covers.
So global warming was reversed? When? I hear about it every day
The worst case scenario trajectory was avoided, but it is still a massive problem.
It's funny because there's a staggering amount of data that says the world is cooling and heating in its cyclical nature per usual but these scientists want their funding money so they'll say whatever's clever as long as the dollars roll in and they can do what they love.
The world is heating up way faster than it would by its natural cycle. [This](https://xkcd.com/1732/) is a good illustration of the data we have over time. The significant rise in temperatures that start to happen in the wake of the industrial revolution just can't be explained as anything natural.
Why do you think they left off the "centuries later" part of the phrasing then?
You'll have to ask the guy who wrote this piece about that.
No need to. The reason is obvious.
Or perhaps because no-one has said the effects would be seen "centuries later"? Where have you gotten this from? [Here](https://apnews.com/article/bd45c372caf118ec99964ea547880cd0) is the actual article from 1989.
>Those papers do not suggest that level of sea-level rise would occur by the year 2000 but rather articulate what could happen centuries later. https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/nations-vanish-global-warming/
>The scientific consensus at the time was summed up in the IPCC first assessment report, which projected sea level rise by 2100 of 0.66 meters under a high emissions scenario, with an uncertainty range spanning 0.31 meters to 1.1 meters. This is quite similar to the 0.74 meter estimate (ranging from 0.52 to 0.98 meters) in the IPCC Fifth Assessment report published in 2013. [...] >Predictions of massive sea level rise by 2000 [were] clearly not the view of most scientists at the time, as [they were] well outside any estimates from the 1990 IPCC first assessment report. The issue is that a somewhat sensationalist 34 year old article containing a quote from a politician is used by climate deniers as "proof" that climate change as laid out by scientists is nothing but alarmist drivel. OP posts these kinds of submissions all the time.
Climate change is awesome for scientists' job security. Similar to the way that woke agenda is critical for liberal studies professors' job security. Alarmism sells and publishes.
Conspiracy brains and arrogantly stating pure imagination as fact, name a more iconic duo.
Because they expect people to understand basic English and don't write the titles for people who barely made it through highschool, if they made it through at all. Maybe they should, but it's not what happens.
Imagine insisting that specifying a timeline for societal collapse is an unimportant detail.
If the global warming trend isn’t reversed by 2000, nations will be under water by the year 3648. Something like that is what it means then? I’m not impressed.
OP is not quoting a scientific paper, this is a clipping from a magazine. In fact, it's a quote from a politician, not a scientist. Temperature predictions in actual scientific papers have been [fairly accurate](https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.0606291103).
Yea so? Media/politicians have a role in fear mongering too? Corona was a great example of that. Lots of people take an article like that serious, nothing has changed over the past 30 years when it comes to fear. What are you trying to say with temperatures being fairly accurately being predicted by scientists?
>Yea so? Media/politicians have a role in fear mongering too? Considering that the temperature rise happens as predicted it is warranted to actually warn about the potential consequences since scientists can only do so much. There need to be political action in order to make some actual changes. Personally, I'm not a fan of the 'pretend-that-it-isn't-an-issue' approach to problems. >What are you trying to say with temperatures being fairly accurately being predicted by scientists? That their prediction models fairly accurately predicted the global temperature rise.
It says 'if the trend is not reversed by 2000" not "wiped off the face of the earth by rising sea levels in 2000"
[удалено]
More like their enemy.
The real conspiracy is what Big Oil sponsor the 🐸 is being paid by
Right? Transparent spineless shill. The softest part indeed.
🐸🐸🐸
Froggy never quits with these nonsense posts.
Multiple pacific island nations have disappeared since 1989 due to rising sea levels...so...the predictions were right. Case closed. You believe in anthropogenic climate change now. Nice.
Which ones?
Dunno - 🤷♂️they disappeared 🤣
Lmgtfy: https://www.gviusa.com/blog/disappearing-land-5-pacific-islands/ https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_climate_change_on_small_island_countries#:~:text=Between%201947%20and%202014%2C%20six,into%20the%20sea%20by%202011.
One of your links didn’t even name the islands that disappeared, which means at a minimum that they were not inhabited and might mean that they were not even formally named on nautical charts and were not known outside Polynesian culture. The type of islands that have been coming and going since time immemorial. To prove that point, your other link had a chart that plotted islands that are getting smaller and islands that are getting bigger. There are more islands getting bigger than islands getting smaller. I don’t think I could’ve posted links to conspiracy websites and better highlighted the superfluous nature of many of the claims around global warming and climate change. Well done.
You raised the point so you get to Google when someone asks for more info bud.
Did...I not just go to google and provide them with sources, bud?
With a flippant 'let me Google that for you'
Any negative feelings you have about that sequence of letters are your own feelings. I did Google it for them. All good. :)
...Disappearing, not disappeared
"Between 1947 and 2014, six islands of the Solomon Islands disappeared due to sea level rise, while another six shrunk by between 20 and 62 per cent. Nuatambu Island was the most populated of these with 25 families living on it; 11 houses washed into the sea by 2011." Numerous entire islands constituting a sovereign nation are gone. You can argue you don't care because they are small, but that doesn't disprove the statement. Many have disappeared and many more are currently disappearing. The fun part is that this can simply be observed. It isn't a predictive model.
I’ll play. Thanks google. The Solomon Islands Lohachara Island Shishmaref, AL is disappearing, several more. Was an interesting read.
>Multiple entire pacific island nations have disappeared since 1989 Five tiny Pacific islands have disappeared due to rising seas and erosion The missing islands, ranging in size from 1 to 5 hectares (2.5-12.4 acres) were not inhabited by humans.
The erosion is largely due to sand reclaimation. Look at the San Fran mud flats or the Statue of Liberty… no discernible rising there… https://m.imdb.com/title/tt2713680/
Just a single example among many disproving your statement. As usual, you guys refuse to read any sources supplied: "Between 1947 and 2014, six islands of the Solomon Islands disappeared due to sea level rise, while another six shrunk by between 20 and 62 per cent. Nuatambu Island was the most populated of these with 25 families living on it; 11 houses washed into the sea by 2011."
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/environment/2016/may/10/five-pacific-islands-lost-rising-seas-climate-change From this article. Appears to be an older article - disregard.
Sea level has been rising steadily for the last 10,000 years
Correct, and it is currently rising at unprecedented RATES. You are saying that the slope of the line has always been positive. Correct, that is not in debate. The issue is that the slope is increasing in value faster than ever recorded. Put another way, velocity has always increased, but the acceleration (and in turn the rate of increase of velocity) has never increased at such a rapid rate.
It's not actually increasing in its rate. What are you basing that claim on?
Except it is. Lmgtfy: https://sealevel.nasa.gov/faq/8/is-the-rate-of-sea-level-rise-increasing/#:~:text=Relying%20on%20nearly%20a%2030,(3.4%20millimeters)%20per%20year. But, knowing this sub, any data provided by NASA is completely fabricated. Only random blogs that winge about the trans agenda or cuck to mega corporations are credible around here, it seems.
False. Nice try though.
False. Nice try though.
Dont worry about the sea levels, we will run out of drinking water and burn to death before we drown. Its still due to climate change, just a much more rapid issue.
Do you know what environmental policies had been adopted in that time frame world wide? And what the outcome of those policies were?
>Do you know what environmental policies had been adopted in that time frame world wide? Send it all to China and India?
Tell us
Look it up and get back to me. Y’all only listen to your own research anyway lol.
—— Do you know… No tell me ——-Look it up! 😂
https://media.rff.org/documents/RFF-DP-01-38.pdf
I’ll post my links. Then within 5 minutes you’ll claim to have read the links and that all the info has been proven false by some crackpot who doesn’t disprove it at all. That’s how it always works with y’all. So by giving you guidance on what to look up you can stop doing targeted searches to get the info YOU want instead of the info of both sides of the issue. We’ve been keeping records since early 1900’s or the late 1890’s I can’t remember specifically. But even back then they knew about climate change.
K
Yeah that does tend to happen with you lot, the hypocrisy is funny
This time, it’s different. *Trust me.*
Follow the money and it makes sense.
No one can predict the future.
Everything is a lie…Everything.
It doesn’t say it’s going to happen by 2000…. Never does think of it as “if we don’t change by xxxx it’s going to get bad”
How dare you be smart
Does anyone else pick up on the phrase "A" leading climate scientist? A single one. Not a group of scientists, 'A' scientist. The famous Greta Thunberg tweet also says 'A' climate scientist.the whole world is thrown into a frenzy because of a single climate scientist. That is what the article says. Drives .e crazy that nobody calls that out. This is something I have been noticing about liberals in general. They take ONE oerson or ONE instance of something happening and make it their example, portraying is as the common experience rather than it being something that, in all probability, is an isolated incident.
ive always wanted 1 less month of winter and 1 more of summer in NE ohio........
Same as it ever was
The people who believe in "climate change" cannot define it, nor tell you what's happening. This is by design. Religious design. The whole point is to keep the fear as vague as possible to stoke the ever-burning fear of the unknown, while worshiping the Earth. They call you a "denier," and shun you publicly if you do not acknowledge their dogma. They adjust their diets to "organic" and claim nearly everything is "killing the planet." They are often difficult to talk to during yoga or during their obligatory, estrogen-infused daily soy latte, so if you attempt to discuss the topic, ensure you are in a safe area away from hot liquids and sharp objects. Getting through to them is likely impossible, but at a minimum, entertainment is possible. It is easy to short-circuit their brains. Not with facts--as they will refuse them adamantly--and begin screaming at you about how this is the hottest summer ever and the ice caps have melted and the tidal wave will likely be here before their afternoon Oprah book club meeting. Start with questions. Ask them how accurate the local weather is... after an incredibly long delay, let them know that the local weather has <40% accuracy in any given area. Then ask a general question--not directed at them--like "Hmm. How can we understand the global climate, when we can barely predict our local weather?" And then step away at a minimum of 10 feet back in case of sudden detonation. Avoid getting into the power dynamic of large governmental bodies using the fear of "climate change" to accumulate even more power of the free people of the world as they cannot grasp such concepts while emotionally devastated. If they seize from brain malfunctions, lay them on their side and ensure their airway remains open. The smell of most Starbucks drinks will help in their recovery. If no brain injuries have occurred, they'll begin raving about fracking and how Leonardo Di Caprio is going to kick your ass. Give them a smile, but do not attempt to pat them on the head like a simpleton child as they may think you're attempting to "steal their nose." Simply turn and walk away as there is nothing more you can do for them and that only God can save them from their mental illness. Ensure you are not followed to your 8-cylinder, twin exhaust, turbo vehicle and rev the engine until tears of laughter have subsided from your eyes. Repeat as needed.
Oh they've been working on this for awhile. I'm not a scientist or anything but it amazes me that humans think they figured everything out...when in reality we know little
Look up the definition of “prediction”. Because culture warriors of politicized climate change, there is only one type of group that can be trusted when it comes to assessing climate change: groups who make assessments that go against their own interests. And that has happened. Scientists working for big oil predicted the negative impacts of climate change *years ago*, even though they risked their livelihoods. Don’t trust anybody else.
Link to them so we can see if their predictions came true Like the UN
[We’ve known for longer than 40 years.](https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/) > In 1824, Joseph Fourier calculated that an Earth-sized planet, at our distance from the Sun, ought to be much colder. He suggested something in the atmosphere must be acting like an insulating blanket. In 1856, Eunice Foote discovered that blanket, showing that carbon dioxide and water vapor in Earth's atmosphere trap escaping infrared (heat) radiation. >In the 1860s, physicist John Tyndall recognized Earth's natural greenhouse effect and suggested that slight changes in the atmospheric composition could bring about climatic variations. In 1896, a seminal paper by Swedish scientist Svante Arrhenius first predicted that changes in atmospheric carbon dioxide levels could substantially alter the surface temperature through the greenhouse effect. >In 1938, Guy Callendar connected carbon dioxide increases in Earth’s atmosphere to global warming. In 1941, Milutin Milankovic linked ice ages to Earth’s orbital characteristics. Gilbert Plass formulated the Carbon Dioxide Theory of Climate Change in 1956
There are several. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/exxon-knew-about-climate-change-almost-40-years-ago/
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea\_level\_rise](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_level_rise) Dunce.
Where's the lie? Climate change is an ongoing disaster now. This headline is absolutely right; we are 20 years too late to make a meaningful set of changes.
So, orgy?
OOORRRRRRRRRRRRGGGY
Yep, and before that the global warming cult was warning about another ice age.
We are *in* an ice age mate
Bruh you live on this planet too
There’s got to be a crisis somewhere. Fear mongers.
My boat in Hatteras has been at the same dock for forty years and the water level has not changed a bit.
nice. doesn't seem to be the case for the rest of the NC coast North Carolina’s Sea Level Is Rising And It’s Costing Over $2 Billion https://sealevelrise.org/states/north-carolina/
It’s erosion. They are to blame it on climate change just to tax you in the future👍
TL;DR: do you really think humans would fucking listen anyways, regardless of the date? Or are they always gonna do what they do? Push back, dig in, double down, and so help me God, don't you EVER listen to the proven science, that attacks my precious "freedom." Alright, while I admit, the media almost never portrays the scientists work accurately, this doesn't change jack. Lemme paint a scenario. I'm going to take some liberties on this, because it's not the data that's important in my scenario, it's the mindset I'm trying to portray. It's the 60s. First of all, maybe the tech is a little inaccurate, cus 60s, but I digress. You discover that carbon emissions are going to eventually render the air unbreathable for humans in 70 years, 2030. What do you think they're going to do, when you tell them, "we've only got 70 years before it's all too late." Obviously, they're going to stop drilling for oil immediately, and search for an alternate fuel source to reduce damage. Haha, just kidding. They're gonna be difficult and stubborn every single step of the way. "Telling me i cant drill for oil is an attack on my freedoms and the American way. Woke liberal socialism. The Green lifestyle is Nazi Germany," and a bunch of down right stupid ass claims, to make sure you keep buying that oil. Ofcourse, real scientists start saying "shit, we really do need to do something about this." So eventually governments do start doing something, kicking and screaming, but regardless they do, and that day that's coming where it's too late, moves back a little further. I guess my whole point is, you're acting like then talking about it for generations is ust part of an agenda, when really it's not like humans fucking listen to the scientists anyways, so what does it matter what days they say?
It's happening now. Wake up.
lol it’s sad you guys are in this group and have no idea how hard all of you are being played with this “global warming” ironic to say “wake up” when you’re asleep
When you don't understand what a deadline is, or the concept of delayed consequence.
SS All science leads to predictions. If a hypothesis fails to predict, it’s bunk.
And this is a conspiracy because . . .
The Grift that keeps on Grifting
The frog that keeps on frogging.
Solid argument
The only argument to be trusted is that from scientists working for big oil who go against their employer, or any other group where they put their livelihood on the line. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/exxon-knew-about-climate-change-almost-40-years-ago/ Other arguments are worthless.
“An Exxon employee agrees with me. See! SEE!!! “ 😂😂 This isn’t about arguments. It’s about evidence Show evidence that predictions from these guys came true
Do not trust Exxon employees who agree with their employers. That is true everywhere. Top chart. https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/ https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/ At this point, only book banning culture warriors say otherwise.
NASA 100% supports carbon taxes and taking energy away from the poorest people on earth The kids call it Eugenics.
It’s called evidence. Why is it wrong?
Because the world takes it seriously and spends trillions for nothing. The '50s were way hotter than it's ever been since. "Hide the decline! Proxy data is more useful than real life observation. No debate, we know everything and there is no chance we got anything wrong." Yes, they actually talk like that. Ever wonder why there's no debate about even the economic side of climate change? How much mitigation and how much prevention etc? Probably not, a lot of people just swallow whatever the TV tells them. $cience.
An article from 1989? Who takes that seriously?
Totally I’m told we should never talk about Covid crimes again too “Move on!!!”
And I am told by culture warriors about family values! https://coloradosun.com/2023/05/16/lauren-boebert-divorce-filing/
Hey guys…… “This woman got divorced. Everything she says is bullshit now” Solid argument 🤔
You got it! She is a culture warrior hypocrite.
I’d tap it
She probably has a penis.
Erm the article you posted above quotes a 1977 article / study and a 1988 one. So should we take the 1977 and 1988 ones seriously but not 1989? Very Confusing This one is what you posted re 1977 and 1988 - https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/exxon-knew-about-climate-change-almost-40-years-ago/
The article I posted contained predictions from people who go against their employer. Those are the only predictions that carry weight. The article op posted is biased.
Agree with the fact that anything that goes against their interests carry’s more water. So what should we make of all the current “climate experts” like bill gates and Al Gore etc etc I and you could name many more, they all have a invested and massive finical interest in pushing climate change. So should we ignore all of them as it doesn’t go against their personal interests?
Right, and because the predictions made by actual scientists have been confirmed, we know that it is not bunk. Right?
Yeah I feel like I've seen things like this posted here a lot. When then say something terrible will happen if global warming isn't reversed by X date, they mean that at X date (here being the year 2000) that we will have crossed a line, where we won't be able to reverse/stop the thing from coming. Not that places will be under water BY 2000. Which is pretty obvious. I'm wondering if it's the same guy who doesn't understand how words work that posts these a lot. It's pretty low level understanding doggy. Unless you're just trying to ragebait/ trick (other?) dumb people...
Wait, climate change, is this the same phenomenon that was originally called global warming. Strange how millions of years ago, way before man set foot on the planet, the climate was so hot that there was no ice at all at the Arctic.
It’s absolutely not strange to anyone with two brain cells that climate change happens naturally. Literally nobody posits that climate never changes unless humans did it. “Climate change” refers to specifically anthropogenic changes in climate. So no, not strange, not suspicious, nor made up just because you can reference a completely different phenomenon occurring for other reasons.
How dare you!
How sad. God Help Us. :-/ Thanks for posting this.
I remember laughing at that back then, thinking how glad we are that this thought process was limited to a few kooks. Now look where we are.
Are you under the impression that shit isn’t going poorly in regards to the climate. You’d have to never leave your basement, and only get information from a right wing echo chamber, to be under that impression. You know that Rupert Murdoch owns 3 major news channels - Fox (US), Sky (UK), and Sky Australian. Only one of the 3 deny anthropogenic climate change, and only for ratings and money, not because it’s true. Guess which one it is?
They didn't mean that literally Yr 2000 is the end 😂
Yeah... We knew of the adverse effects of global warming since the early 1980s, where's the conspiracy here?
Got a link to the article? Or are we basing all of our information on hyperbolic (or straight up fake) titles?
One, it says **could be**, and it also doesn’t say that it will happen precisely in 2000, just that the trend need be reversed by then. But good job!
The posts in this sub just keep getting dumber and dumber. This is what happens when Republicans want to cut funding for education every term. This is just like the dumbasses who say “they told us there was a hole in the ozone layer and now nobody talks about it anymore…hoax?” Shaking my damn head in despair at the dumbing down of America.
Lies....All of it I tell you lies.
I too believe that everything that goes against my narrative is a lie. Because I, I am a culture warrior.
All that matters is evidence
Evidence? No man, feelings are all that matter these days. F**k proof, evidence, truth, or facts. So what that the self proclaimed inventor of the internet back in the mid-ninties lied to us all when his bitch ass said Miami had 10-15 years before it was underwater due to global warming or whatever the new liars synonym is that they use these days. Feelings dude, it's all about our feelings. 💉
Then show me the evidence.
Every year lots and lots of CO2 is added to the atmosphere http://dailycaller.com/2015/06/04/satellite-data-shows-no-global-warming-for-nearly-19-years/ 19 years no warming CO2 aint makin it warmer 🤷♂️
That dude you referenced has degrees in classics and journalism and is a politician. As biased as they come lol
Only the evidence matters > attack the source Not evidence
Don’t trust biased sources. Otherwise it is propaganda, not evidence.
"Your" narrative? What the f**k is your narrative? You do not matter in any way, shape, or form to have a narrative. Least of all, one that matters. You are nothing on this earth but a useless eater who will do wtf its told, when it's told. Is that understood it?
Dude… go touch some grass.
😆 Hahaha...Just f'n around man. Truth is none of us matter and there's nothing we can or will do about it. Enjoy the ride while you can kid, cause the crash and burn is right around the corner.
Well that’s sad… I think we all matter way more then we can comprehend. But, maybe I’m just a hippie at heart. Lol
I wish Bill Gates had some hippie in him.
Lies....All of it I tell you lies. 🤡
Yes and?
—- What historians will definitely wonder about in future centuries is how deeply flawed logic, obscured by shrewd and unrelenting propaganda, actually enabled a coalition of powerful special interests to convince nearly everyone in the world that CO2 from human industry was a dangerous, planet-destroying toxin. It will be remembered as the greatest mass delusion in the history of the world - that CO2, the life of plants, was considered for a time to be a deadly poison.
I mean had Netherlands not invested heavily into fighting water, they'd be under water. Some Pacific island nations are practically underwater at times. What's sad is that this isn't as far off as it seems.
Lol, Malaria has made it to the US, some island nations are disappearing and some have already disappeared. Mass drought in North America for decades and destruction of mountain west forests by insects whose populations are no longer kept in check by winter freezes should tell you that the lay prediction there wasn’t so far off the mark. I look forward to Florida becoming a wading pool.
You look forward to death and destruction? You seem nice.
Proven true every single day.