Hasn't been that long since the "Climate experts" (so called) were wailing and beating their breasts in panic because of the approaching ICE AGE. So much for the ""Experts".
That's a good question. To be honest, NO, the disinformation is not entirely one-sided, but there is a significant evidence suggesting that much of the intentional spread of misleading information has been funded and propagated by interests that stand to lose from climate action, particularly the fossil fuel industry. This industry has historically played a substantial role in promoting climate disinformation through various means, including funding conservative think tanks and front groups, as well as using social media and other platforms to amplify misleading narratives. Much effort has been aimed at creating doubt about the causes and impacts of climate change, questioning the reliability and affordability of renewable energy sources, and undermining public trust in climate science and scientists. The goal of these disinformation campaigns is often to delay or obstruct policy measures and regulations that would limit greenhouse gas emissions and transition away from fossil fuels
Glad to see that someone else besides myself remembers the 1970s.
Do you have any source for that besides your notes?
My professor, the Head of the Geography Department at UBC in the early 1990's was one of the main Carbon Credit inventors and worked closely with the United Nations team. It's very easy to verify. Do some due diligence before showing your ignorance.
Using your term "data" lets look how "weather data" is used. I think it is fair to say that data is used to study long-term patterns and trends which in turn provides evidence of climate change. Thus allowing scientists to analyze factors like temperature, sea levels, and extreme weather events to understand how the climate is changing over time. By comparing historical records and using climate models, they can determine if our human activities are impacting these changes. This evidence (data) helps us to better understand the long-term shifts in Earth's climate and the role of human actions in driving these changes.
You are correct, my wording was not good at all. Rather than say "closer to the the truth, I would have been more accurate of me to say s"the aim of science is to build true and accurate knowledge about how the world works."
No disagreement.
I agree we should not trust the media. There are much better sources for climate information, such as: government websites like NOAA, academia journals like Nature Climate Change, scientific organizations like the American Association for the Advancement of Science, multiple university libraries and research centers and nonprofit organizations like the Center for Climate & Energy Solutions
I am not denying the professor's credentials or credibility. I did a search and came up with, as previously stated,"The search results primarily discuss the complexities and challenges associated with carbon offsets and climate policies, including issues related to the effectiveness of certain carbon credit programs and the use of forests as carbon offsets. However, they do not support the specific claim about the UCB Geography department. It's important to critically evaluate information and ensure that claims are based on credible and verifiable sources.
The underlying algorithm of carbon credits is a scam. There is no other word for it. At the heart it is mass transfer of wealth from one entity to another. The base assumption that there is something "evil" about carbon levels is just scientifically and factually inaccurate.
Come on. You can not be that gullible. Melting glaciers have been going on since observations were first recorded in the 1700's. "Extreme heat waves"? Do you mean "weather"? The amount of false statements you make is astonishing.
You have not established that it is a scam, but you are entitled to your opinion.
Your claim that carbon dioxide levels do not affect the climate is scientifically and factually inaccurate. If it is a scam then there should be evidence that it is. You can not convince anyone solely from your opinion.
Can you be more specific. What wealth is going to who from whom.
Carbon is not evil it is beneficial especially to plants.
Maybe you can quit gaslighting.
It is a waste of time discussing with people like you. I do not need to nor am I obligated to explain anything.
Gaslighting again. You have yet to provide one iota of science that agrees with your position.
qz.com
Did you just discover a new word for your vocabulary? Good for you.Gaslighting again. You have yet to provide one iota of science that agrees with your position.
As a part of your own due diligence and review why you can not find much of any climate denial agreement among scientists.
Those 3% of scientific papers that deny climate change? A review found them all flawed
Scientists who deny climate change are not modern-day Galileos.
Then the op fails.
Not trusting does not prevent verifying.
I don't have to consider any other view when I have determined what is fact and what is not. What I do consider is why people come to other conclusions based on ignorance, brainwashing, bias, cognitive dissonance and other factors. It's not "all relative".
Glad to read that you think so highly of reasoning ability but you won't convince anyone else without sharing relevant scientific research that lead to your conclusions.
If you are considering that people come to other conclusions you only need search through the 99% of the relevant scientific research.
it is relative to you because you have already decided, without any basis, that it is based on ignorance, brainwashing, bias, cognitive dissonance and other factors.
Again, it matters not to me in the slightest what you may or may not believe. I'm not here to convince you because you aren't open to new or proper ideas anyway. It's a complete waste of time and effort. Just know that what you think is true, isn't.
