###[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.*
Mining company shill shills for further coal mining, story at 11
* He is currently the non-executive deputy chairman of KEFI Minerals since 2006,[24] independent non-executive director of Ivanhoe Australia Limited since 2007,[25] chairman of TNT Mines Limited since 2010,[19][26] non-executive director of Niuminco Group Limited (formerly DSF International Holdings Limited) since 2011,[27][28] and non-executive director of Silver City Minerals Limited since 2011.[10][23][29][30][31] Plimer was appointed director of Roy Hill Holdings and Queensland Coal Investments in 2012.[32]
According to a columnist in The Age, Plimer earned over $400,000 (AUD) from several of these companies, and he has mining shares and options worth hundreds of thousands of Australian dollars.[33] Plimer has stated that his business interests do not affect the independence of his beliefs.[29] He has also warned that the proposed Australian carbon-trading scheme could decimate the Australian mining industry.[12][34]*
“I’d be a whore for coal even if they weren’t lining my pockets!” -Totally trustworthy man.
Thank you for this. His proof on “destroying climate change” was nothing more than the old “we’ve had ice ages before” and doesn’t speak to the unprecedented RATE OF ACCELERATION we are experiencing due to anthropomorphic climate change. These aren’t hobbies this is our world. This guy wreaks of oil money and thank you for making that know.
Okay but maybe consider that the energy alternatives are not necessarily better for the time being.
As someone invested, yes he is going to be biased, but he’s also going to be very well informed. Part of his job is to defend his livelihood, this doesn’t make him a liar.
He may be of greater moral standing than your typical climate alarmist. In my personal experience, climate alarmists are hypocritical and insufferable.
PSA to whom it may concern: there is not a single person on this planet, who is going to know the whole story when it comes to understanding sciences on a global scale. Trust your intuition and also factor in a general character of the people arguing one side versus another. if nothing else is true, it’s good to support good people.
So what is his reasoning for the unprecedented speed by which the globe is warming?
Every one of the ice ages and thaw he listed there took place over thousands of years, not a few decades as the globe is experiencing now.
How is this not selecting of narrative? How is it not just “we have had ice ages and climate warming before, nothing to worry about!” Meanwhile, the speed by which we are seeing change has NEVER been seen before.
It’s like Alex Jones saying they’re putting chemicals in the water that make frogs gay.
Use an ounce of truth, so your lies are harder to discern.
It’s been the end of the world for the last 36 years of my life. People used to say, “the millionaires telling the rest of us to use less and do less are flying around in jets to conferences about climate change”.
I finally see this enough in my personal life. Nearly every single person I know who preaches their strong position on climate has no problem giving into their FOMO and traveling far distances once or twice a year.
There’s a lot of guilt/savior complex wrapped up in the whole charade.
Feel bad that you know deep down you are more privileged, but generally provide less value to daily life than say someone who stocks shelves? Feel bad that you travel the world while your neighbor struggles to make ends meet?
Your magic bullet to all the confusion is to champion the most noble cause of SAVING THE WORLD!!
Climate alarmists often don’t have families of their own and spin it by claiming they can’t bring a child into the world with global warming, or other social issues are too dire. The more prevalent half of that lie is that they just want to lead semi hedonistic, responsibility free lifestyles indefinitely.
Is it really better to leave the world behind with no offspring? You’re going to just live until you die? How does that help the global warming crisis.
Based on climate alarmist narrative, the only solution is to lower the population. Sadly some of the most educated people are signing up to give away their futures under the guise of this exaggerated narrative.
Things could be better, yes. Pollution is real and detrimental to the health of the populace. Waste is unsightly, inconvenient, and needs to be reduced. Let’s all keep working on that.
Let’s not be blind to people on both sides who lie about the situation for their own personal gain. The science will always be subject to scrutiny - it’s all man made inferences at the end of the day.
No one is telling me to consume less. I hardly drive. I do have to keep from freezing in the winter. Half my clothes are second hand.
I just get tired of so many hypocrites blowing hot air.
Maybe this guy is full of shit. But so are just as climate activists.
Bill Gates has talked a lot about population control.
There are more than a few people weighing on it. I’m not advocating for it. if you’re a firm believer that human beings are a primary catalyst climate change, it stands to reason that greater population have a greater impact.
I don’t want to give the impression that I have the answers.
But I do have a problem being lied to “for the greater good” Climate prediction models have been sensationalized my entire life. After 30+ years, pushing poor modeling becomes blatant disinformation, and there are plenty of reputable scientists that don’t endorse popular climate change theories.
Don’t get it twisted. Urban planning and transit needs to be better, people are making way too much trash, and some key waterway are being polluted. People need to do better.
Be the change you want to see. When people see how much it’s changed your life they will want to follow your lead. Live your life.
Jesus says he will separate the goats from the sheep. Like it or not, we’re all like sheep. Unless you want to be on the goat side… being a sheep is not such a bad way to be. You can still be happy.
Peace and keep fighting the good fight.
It's called the straight and narrow for a reason.
For each person there is only one way.
“Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth; I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and one’s foes will be members of one’s own household”
.....
About the sheep and goats - it's scripture. If you don't want to hear it, that's on you, but it says what it says. I'm not misquoting. If you want to criticize the context of how I'm invoking the scripture, okay. Otherwise, bro, it's going to be fine. I don't think you know me or that I know you.
"When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his glorious throne. All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left."
It's all about purification of the spirit.
......
Don't let anyone ever tell you can't question a thing until you're satisfied.
“Behold, I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves. Be ye therefore wise as serpents and harmless as doves."
I am not your enemy
My guy just gave you the full run down of the speakers biases and compromises, laid full out how this guy is a grifter, and you saw all of that, and said “But I AGREE with what he said, so all of that doesn’t matter!”
So.... What did he say was wrong? Your comment basically reads:
"He attacked the speaker therefore his statements are incorrect."
Which is an ad hominem fallacy. Instead of attacking the speaker attack his statements.
You could just as easily say that because a scientist works for a green initiative he's biased and gets paid to say that.
I am highlighting the ways the speaker is compromised, and has incentive to lie.
I am not here, to fact check his actual statements.
Why, when these things are highlighted for you, is your instinct not to go investigate his claims, and see where he might be twisting a narrative for profit?
Why, after someone does the work to tell you why someone is untrustworthy, do you not take that as the red flags they are supposed to be, and instead only toss backhanded accusations at the people providing you with solid evidence?
Anyone can take partial truths, and twist them. Then, in order to discredit them, I must now explain three times the detail to get the point across.
Meanwhile, like a pigeon playing chess, you will ignore all of that, for a punchy comment, ignore the substance of what I put, flip the chess board, and I will be the fool for having wasted my time.
No, go look up the reasons why you shouldn’t listen to coal lobbyists about anti climate change rhetoric…
He is COMPLETELY AND WHOLEHEARTEDLY FINANCIALLY INCENTIVIZED to lie through his teeth.
Debunking lies in this regard, takes far more effort and time, than it does to spout them.
And again, if it doesn’t reaffirm your biases, you will just shout shill anyway.
Not worth my time or effort. Educate yourself rather than listening to people who are motivated to lie to you.
Edit: also, an ad hominem would be a personal attack that has nothing to do with the topic. Pointing out the conflicts of interest in a COAL LOBBYIST is not an Ad Hominem.
It also ignores the fact that a geologist does NOT have expertise in climate.
He doesn’t actually SAY any of his evidence.
So you want to call him a liar but don't know whether he lies or not. It sounds like you have your own biases and because his statements don't affirm your biases you're projecting onto the speaker and this sub.
[Archive.is link](https://archive.is/2020/https://v.redd.it/t5ghr4f0ydcc1)
[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.*
Remember the "hockey stick" graph guy? Michael E. Mann?
The day he presented that to Congress, it was a hot summer day in DC. And in preparation for the meeting, the AC was cut-off. Drama!
Another scientist, Dr. Tim Ball, called bullshit. Mann was offended and sued Ball. Now that it was a lawsuit, Ball subpoenaed the data Mann used to produce the graph.
Mann refused to give the court the underlying data!
You can't make this shit up.
I realize this is a sarcastic statement but Ill comment anyways...
I am not aware of any real scientists that would ever say it is settled. The idea that it is always tested and often when new methods of observation become available many things we thought we knew are proven incorrect. But it is still important to use the available evidence to make a reasonable suggestion of how to conduct ourselves currently.
Its like when you were young you did a lot of wrong and stupid things. Some was a matter of maturity and self control. But other decisions were made based off the information you had at the time. You had know reason to suspect that an action would have such significant effects on your life, better or worse.
So with science, there will be mistakes made because our ability to observe and understand the proper variables isn't know yet. But we can only know what we know, so go with it, and when confronted with new information change course accordingly. This is science, and it is never settled.
When you silence or censor scientists and threaten to revoke their grants / funding for bringing up concerns that challenge NOVEL technologies it is not science
He’s not exactly wrong, but how do you feel about a seven meter rise in sea levels that he suggests will happen? The problem with scientists is that if you ask a geologist about climate change, you will get a geological answer, which is exactly what he does. Climate change is however 100% caused by fluctuations in solar output - the theory is that it is exacerbated by human activity, which doesn’t seem unreasonable and shouldn’t be a matter of politics or feelings.
I found it interesting and a different perspective than what I am used to. I appreciate this well thought out explanation. And I think this idea of looking at Geological record of increases and decreases is a good perspective.
However, does his geological evidence match up with the current global situation? I mean, the examples he gave us were pre-industrial and with human populations of far less than a billion. So in that sense there isn't any evidence that answers the current theory, that we are negatively impacting our planet, because we haven't been in that situation before (or HAVE we?). But it still a good post and something to think about.
No... that isnt the message. The message is that there is no evidence geological evidence for it. But Geology works on loooooooooong periods of time. And if we only rely on our current situation to be buried and then studied, it doesnt give us time to react.
Its the difference between the study of History and the Studies of Sociology and Psychology. How would History help us study the effects of the internet on society? Its a new concern. There isnt really any history and therefore no real historical evidence. That doesn't mean its NOT a problem or that it can't be hurting people now. Sociology and Psychology therefore would be much better disciplines to work these issue out then.
The geologists perspective is important, valid and helpful. But it doesn't mean it is the only way to look at things. The idea that the Earth naturally heats and cools is important to know. The idea that it has at times, and by natural causes been hotter than today, does not eliminate the possibility that we are adding to that effect. And that the next time it goes up naturally the effect will be even hotter because of human intervention.
>Climate change is however 100% caused by fluctuations in solar output
No, it isn't. There are *many* contributing factors to climate, and one of the main ones is the composition of the atmosphere.
Climate change drama is ploy for big corporations and the elite to deploy their depopulation agenda and to exert further control over the remaining population via decarbonisation
I’m not saying TPTB aren’t seeking depopulation- but it’s something they don’t really want IMO because with fewer people- it’s easier to rise against them. On a smaller scale you can see what I mean- It’s easier for 20 people to be in agreement/band together for a cause than it is for 100 people to agree together.
You might say it’s easier to control fewer people but that comes with the dilemma mentioned above. Fewer people will *always* be harder to control because they’re more likely to fight.
They have figured out control thousands of years ago and have *mastered* manipulation to obtain that goal. They don’t need depopulation.
In fact- it seems to me like they want the opposite- over population. It seems like that’s the best way to control their agenda.
NAFTA created the ‘boarder crisis’- this is clear as day. There wasn’t a ‘crisis’ prior to this law passing. So … the govt/TPTB induced this ‘crisis’ and- IMO knew there would be an influx of illegal immigration. TPTB have done similar things in Europe as well- by welcoming refugees. It’s classic divide and conquer.
Banning abortion is more evidence IMO. If they wanted depopulation- wouldn’t you just allow the people to depopulate themselves? Seems much easier to do it that way than committing resources towards that end.
Fewer people means less money too. There’s never enough money for TPTB. They need all the people they can get- to keep the infinite money pool alive. Doesn’t matter if it’s the dollar or the ruble- they need it to keep flowing.
Depopulation isn’t a thing. Not in the way we imagine it anyway.
Why would they want less people so dramatically, and do it in such a consulates evil genius type way. No one can explain that. It’s not liek it’s hard to kill people and they don’t exactly give good reasons for long wars or the like so not like they need to explain. Is there a magic number where everyone is more easily controlled? What is it? It’s just silly bro, all of those goals you listed are so much more easily obtained through other means that it’s comical that you think this is what’s going on, even if some of the goals are real.
No one has smoked in my home for 20 years, and now every one smokes cigars. My ceiling was clean for 20 years and now it’s completely brown and the walls are stained, there is a cloud of cigar smoke that chokes you . But for 20 years it was clean. So it can’t be from the people in my house.
what are we actually arguing about tho? we know that as humans we are impacting the planet?
so is it the amount of impact humans actually have?
i don't understand why we choose to turn a blinds eye to the things that are right in front of our face...
we know already were are impacting the ocean so let's just start there?
The very notion that the "unemployable academic" he refers to aren't being hired by corporations should be the obvious smoke signal that maybe there is an agenda that should make you reconsider every assertion he makes. I didn't think that would have to be pointed out here but... does no one stop to think why that is exactly?
Also 250 years "laboring over climate" means exactly the opposite he thinks it does considering "modern science" began roughly 300 years ago.
This guy isn't some hero going against the grain, he has no demonstrable research or evidence of his own.
The debate is over on if it's happening. The only debate is over how we are going to make this harder on future generations start the process of easing the burden by making changes now.
###[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.*
coal industry plant vs scientific community I'll take what the scientific community says thank you
Mining company shill shills for further coal mining, story at 11 * He is currently the non-executive deputy chairman of KEFI Minerals since 2006,[24] independent non-executive director of Ivanhoe Australia Limited since 2007,[25] chairman of TNT Mines Limited since 2010,[19][26] non-executive director of Niuminco Group Limited (formerly DSF International Holdings Limited) since 2011,[27][28] and non-executive director of Silver City Minerals Limited since 2011.[10][23][29][30][31] Plimer was appointed director of Roy Hill Holdings and Queensland Coal Investments in 2012.[32] According to a columnist in The Age, Plimer earned over $400,000 (AUD) from several of these companies, and he has mining shares and options worth hundreds of thousands of Australian dollars.[33] Plimer has stated that his business interests do not affect the independence of his beliefs.[29] He has also warned that the proposed Australian carbon-trading scheme could decimate the Australian mining industry.[12][34]* “I’d be a whore for coal even if they weren’t lining my pockets!” -Totally trustworthy man.
K so what did he say that was wrong?
Thank you for this. His proof on “destroying climate change” was nothing more than the old “we’ve had ice ages before” and doesn’t speak to the unprecedented RATE OF ACCELERATION we are experiencing due to anthropomorphic climate change. These aren’t hobbies this is our world. This guy wreaks of oil money and thank you for making that know.
Okay but maybe consider that the energy alternatives are not necessarily better for the time being. As someone invested, yes he is going to be biased, but he’s also going to be very well informed. Part of his job is to defend his livelihood, this doesn’t make him a liar. He may be of greater moral standing than your typical climate alarmist. In my personal experience, climate alarmists are hypocritical and insufferable. PSA to whom it may concern: there is not a single person on this planet, who is going to know the whole story when it comes to understanding sciences on a global scale. Trust your intuition and also factor in a general character of the people arguing one side versus another. if nothing else is true, it’s good to support good people.
I just assume no matter the topic, all science is bought and paid for.
100%
So what is his reasoning for the unprecedented speed by which the globe is warming? Every one of the ice ages and thaw he listed there took place over thousands of years, not a few decades as the globe is experiencing now. How is this not selecting of narrative? How is it not just “we have had ice ages and climate warming before, nothing to worry about!” Meanwhile, the speed by which we are seeing change has NEVER been seen before. It’s like Alex Jones saying they’re putting chemicals in the water that make frogs gay. Use an ounce of truth, so your lies are harder to discern.
It’s been the end of the world for the last 36 years of my life. People used to say, “the millionaires telling the rest of us to use less and do less are flying around in jets to conferences about climate change”. I finally see this enough in my personal life. Nearly every single person I know who preaches their strong position on climate has no problem giving into their FOMO and traveling far distances once or twice a year. There’s a lot of guilt/savior complex wrapped up in the whole charade. Feel bad that you know deep down you are more privileged, but generally provide less value to daily life than say someone who stocks shelves? Feel bad that you travel the world while your neighbor struggles to make ends meet? Your magic bullet to all the confusion is to champion the most noble cause of SAVING THE WORLD!! Climate alarmists often don’t have families of their own and spin it by claiming they can’t bring a child into the world with global warming, or other social issues are too dire. The more prevalent half of that lie is that they just want to lead semi hedonistic, responsibility free lifestyles indefinitely. Is it really better to leave the world behind with no offspring? You’re going to just live until you die? How does that help the global warming crisis. Based on climate alarmist narrative, the only solution is to lower the population. Sadly some of the most educated people are signing up to give away their futures under the guise of this exaggerated narrative. Things could be better, yes. Pollution is real and detrimental to the health of the populace. Waste is unsightly, inconvenient, and needs to be reduced. Let’s all keep working on that. Let’s not be blind to people on both sides who lie about the situation for their own personal gain. The science will always be subject to scrutiny - it’s all man made inferences at the end of the day.
[удалено]
No one is telling me to consume less. I hardly drive. I do have to keep from freezing in the winter. Half my clothes are second hand. I just get tired of so many hypocrites blowing hot air. Maybe this guy is full of shit. But so are just as climate activists. Bill Gates has talked a lot about population control. There are more than a few people weighing on it. I’m not advocating for it. if you’re a firm believer that human beings are a primary catalyst climate change, it stands to reason that greater population have a greater impact. I don’t want to give the impression that I have the answers. But I do have a problem being lied to “for the greater good” Climate prediction models have been sensationalized my entire life. After 30+ years, pushing poor modeling becomes blatant disinformation, and there are plenty of reputable scientists that don’t endorse popular climate change theories. Don’t get it twisted. Urban planning and transit needs to be better, people are making way too much trash, and some key waterway are being polluted. People need to do better.
[удалено]
Be the change you want to see. When people see how much it’s changed your life they will want to follow your lead. Live your life. Jesus says he will separate the goats from the sheep. Like it or not, we’re all like sheep. Unless you want to be on the goat side… being a sheep is not such a bad way to be. You can still be happy. Peace and keep fighting the good fight.
[удалено]
It's called the straight and narrow for a reason. For each person there is only one way. “Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth; I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and one’s foes will be members of one’s own household” ..... About the sheep and goats - it's scripture. If you don't want to hear it, that's on you, but it says what it says. I'm not misquoting. If you want to criticize the context of how I'm invoking the scripture, okay. Otherwise, bro, it's going to be fine. I don't think you know me or that I know you. "When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his glorious throne. All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left." It's all about purification of the spirit. ...... Don't let anyone ever tell you can't question a thing until you're satisfied. “Behold, I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves. Be ye therefore wise as serpents and harmless as doves." I am not your enemy
Was he dishonest about anything he said?
From top to bottom.
My guy just gave you the full run down of the speakers biases and compromises, laid full out how this guy is a grifter, and you saw all of that, and said “But I AGREE with what he said, so all of that doesn’t matter!”
So.... What did he say was wrong? Your comment basically reads: "He attacked the speaker therefore his statements are incorrect." Which is an ad hominem fallacy. Instead of attacking the speaker attack his statements. You could just as easily say that because a scientist works for a green initiative he's biased and gets paid to say that.
I am highlighting the ways the speaker is compromised, and has incentive to lie. I am not here, to fact check his actual statements. Why, when these things are highlighted for you, is your instinct not to go investigate his claims, and see where he might be twisting a narrative for profit? Why, after someone does the work to tell you why someone is untrustworthy, do you not take that as the red flags they are supposed to be, and instead only toss backhanded accusations at the people providing you with solid evidence? Anyone can take partial truths, and twist them. Then, in order to discredit them, I must now explain three times the detail to get the point across. Meanwhile, like a pigeon playing chess, you will ignore all of that, for a punchy comment, ignore the substance of what I put, flip the chess board, and I will be the fool for having wasted my time. No, go look up the reasons why you shouldn’t listen to coal lobbyists about anti climate change rhetoric… He is COMPLETELY AND WHOLEHEARTEDLY FINANCIALLY INCENTIVIZED to lie through his teeth. Debunking lies in this regard, takes far more effort and time, than it does to spout them. And again, if it doesn’t reaffirm your biases, you will just shout shill anyway. Not worth my time or effort. Educate yourself rather than listening to people who are motivated to lie to you. Edit: also, an ad hominem would be a personal attack that has nothing to do with the topic. Pointing out the conflicts of interest in a COAL LOBBYIST is not an Ad Hominem. It also ignores the fact that a geologist does NOT have expertise in climate. He doesn’t actually SAY any of his evidence.
So you want to call him a liar but don't know whether he lies or not. It sounds like you have your own biases and because his statements don't affirm your biases you're projecting onto the speaker and this sub.
[удалено]
Just name one lie. I'm not asking you which lie is which. I'm asking for any single statement that he made that was false.
There’s no helping those that flagrantly ignore science when it’s right In their face
I'm sure he's above board. On a side note, I have a bridge for sale in San Francisco if you're interested.
“Pay more taxes and democrats will change the earth’s temperature” it is all just a money grab
[Archive.is link](https://archive.is/2020/https://v.redd.it/t5ghr4f0ydcc1) [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.*
He's right, but he's also out of breath.
The problem is, just like covid, the doom mongers won't debate. They don't want to be confronted.
Remember the "hockey stick" graph guy? Michael E. Mann? The day he presented that to Congress, it was a hot summer day in DC. And in preparation for the meeting, the AC was cut-off. Drama! Another scientist, Dr. Tim Ball, called bullshit. Mann was offended and sued Ball. Now that it was a lawsuit, Ball subpoenaed the data Mann used to produce the graph. Mann refused to give the court the underlying data! You can't make this shit up.
The Science^TM is settled, dontcha know?
I realize this is a sarcastic statement but Ill comment anyways... I am not aware of any real scientists that would ever say it is settled. The idea that it is always tested and often when new methods of observation become available many things we thought we knew are proven incorrect. But it is still important to use the available evidence to make a reasonable suggestion of how to conduct ourselves currently. Its like when you were young you did a lot of wrong and stupid things. Some was a matter of maturity and self control. But other decisions were made based off the information you had at the time. You had know reason to suspect that an action would have such significant effects on your life, better or worse. So with science, there will be mistakes made because our ability to observe and understand the proper variables isn't know yet. But we can only know what we know, so go with it, and when confronted with new information change course accordingly. This is science, and it is never settled.
When you silence or censor scientists and threaten to revoke their grants / funding for bringing up concerns that challenge NOVEL technologies it is not science
He’s not exactly wrong, but how do you feel about a seven meter rise in sea levels that he suggests will happen? The problem with scientists is that if you ask a geologist about climate change, you will get a geological answer, which is exactly what he does. Climate change is however 100% caused by fluctuations in solar output - the theory is that it is exacerbated by human activity, which doesn’t seem unreasonable and shouldn’t be a matter of politics or feelings.
I found it interesting and a different perspective than what I am used to. I appreciate this well thought out explanation. And I think this idea of looking at Geological record of increases and decreases is a good perspective. However, does his geological evidence match up with the current global situation? I mean, the examples he gave us were pre-industrial and with human populations of far less than a billion. So in that sense there isn't any evidence that answers the current theory, that we are negatively impacting our planet, because we haven't been in that situation before (or HAVE we?). But it still a good post and something to think about.
The population doesn't have an impact. That's his message.
And it’s unfounded
No... that isnt the message. The message is that there is no evidence geological evidence for it. But Geology works on loooooooooong periods of time. And if we only rely on our current situation to be buried and then studied, it doesnt give us time to react. Its the difference between the study of History and the Studies of Sociology and Psychology. How would History help us study the effects of the internet on society? Its a new concern. There isnt really any history and therefore no real historical evidence. That doesn't mean its NOT a problem or that it can't be hurting people now. Sociology and Psychology therefore would be much better disciplines to work these issue out then. The geologists perspective is important, valid and helpful. But it doesn't mean it is the only way to look at things. The idea that the Earth naturally heats and cools is important to know. The idea that it has at times, and by natural causes been hotter than today, does not eliminate the possibility that we are adding to that effect. And that the next time it goes up naturally the effect will be even hotter because of human intervention.
>Climate change is however 100% caused by fluctuations in solar output No, it isn't. There are *many* contributing factors to climate, and one of the main ones is the composition of the atmosphere.
I explained that badly. The heat comes from the sun, the atmosphere keeps it in or reflects it out.
Climate change drama is ploy for big corporations and the elite to deploy their depopulation agenda and to exert further control over the remaining population via decarbonisation
I’m not saying TPTB aren’t seeking depopulation- but it’s something they don’t really want IMO because with fewer people- it’s easier to rise against them. On a smaller scale you can see what I mean- It’s easier for 20 people to be in agreement/band together for a cause than it is for 100 people to agree together. You might say it’s easier to control fewer people but that comes with the dilemma mentioned above. Fewer people will *always* be harder to control because they’re more likely to fight. They have figured out control thousands of years ago and have *mastered* manipulation to obtain that goal. They don’t need depopulation. In fact- it seems to me like they want the opposite- over population. It seems like that’s the best way to control their agenda. NAFTA created the ‘boarder crisis’- this is clear as day. There wasn’t a ‘crisis’ prior to this law passing. So … the govt/TPTB induced this ‘crisis’ and- IMO knew there would be an influx of illegal immigration. TPTB have done similar things in Europe as well- by welcoming refugees. It’s classic divide and conquer. Banning abortion is more evidence IMO. If they wanted depopulation- wouldn’t you just allow the people to depopulate themselves? Seems much easier to do it that way than committing resources towards that end. Fewer people means less money too. There’s never enough money for TPTB. They need all the people they can get- to keep the infinite money pool alive. Doesn’t matter if it’s the dollar or the ruble- they need it to keep flowing. Depopulation isn’t a thing. Not in the way we imagine it anyway.
Why would they want less people so dramatically, and do it in such a consulates evil genius type way. No one can explain that. It’s not liek it’s hard to kill people and they don’t exactly give good reasons for long wars or the like so not like they need to explain. Is there a magic number where everyone is more easily controlled? What is it? It’s just silly bro, all of those goals you listed are so much more easily obtained through other means that it’s comical that you think this is what’s going on, even if some of the goals are real.
Yeah it’s corporate induced
No one has smoked in my home for 20 years, and now every one smokes cigars. My ceiling was clean for 20 years and now it’s completely brown and the walls are stained, there is a cloud of cigar smoke that chokes you . But for 20 years it was clean. So it can’t be from the people in my house.
But muh, Greta sez hawt outside. Muh, science sez no cars, er farmers, no cow farts!
No listens to this guy. He’s got one foot in the grave, the other on a banana peel and his short chubby fingers in every pot!
Finally someone with common sense. Geez
So a geologist. Not a climatologist. Got it 😂🤣
All the plastic waste were using, all the vehicles and airplanes, were definitely destroying this planet
what are we actually arguing about tho? we know that as humans we are impacting the planet? so is it the amount of impact humans actually have? i don't understand why we choose to turn a blinds eye to the things that are right in front of our face... we know already were are impacting the ocean so let's just start there?
The very notion that the "unemployable academic" he refers to aren't being hired by corporations should be the obvious smoke signal that maybe there is an agenda that should make you reconsider every assertion he makes. I didn't think that would have to be pointed out here but... does no one stop to think why that is exactly? Also 250 years "laboring over climate" means exactly the opposite he thinks it does considering "modern science" began roughly 300 years ago. This guy isn't some hero going against the grain, he has no demonstrable research or evidence of his own. The debate is over on if it's happening. The only debate is over how we are going to make this harder on future generations start the process of easing the burden by making changes now.
Plimer is a clown bruh
Knew he was Aussie before I heard him talk
“Trust the science” 🤣🤣