[mcv]

> Statements like that are not leading to fruitful discussions and signals of you as not very intelligent person. I suggest to stay away from it.

Normally yes, but not in this case. You were repeating a nonsense conspiracy theory that's completely detached from reality. That is something that signals you as a not very intelligent person, but I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt.

> That's very primitive state of facts.

Facts nonetheless. You try to present it as if politicians have been pushing the idea of climate change, but the fact is that they've been lagging, very slow to accept the facts until it really couldn't be denied anymore, and then they still didn't do anything.

Scientists are the ones who've been telling us about climate change for over a century now. Climate activists have picked up that message and have been pushing it. Major parties have mostly ignored it or at best paid lip service to it.

> While it is certainly true in many cases, industry changes imposed by "climate change" lobby are resulting in huge redistribution of wealth.

In what way? You state this as if it's a fact, but this really depends on what kind of industry changes you're going to impose. Well, it's obvious that the oil industry is going to lose their business, which is why they've been investing so much effort into spreading misinformation about it.

But industry changes are normal. Every technological and societal change causes changes to industries. Look at the rise of computers, for just one of many examples.

> To the best of our knowledge, climate change happens on this planet for all time of its existence. How much human activity contributes to that is something extremely difficult to measure and understand.

That is completely missing the point. We're talking specifically about climate change caused by the greenhouse effect, caused by putting more CO2 in the atmosphere by burning more fossil fuels.

The greenhouse effect has been well known for practically 2 centuries now. It's been well-proven on a small scale: more CO2 or other greenhouse gasses (methane, water vapor) in a container that light can enter (like a greenhouse) means the air in the container absorbs more heat and gets hotter.

1 century ago, Alexander Graham Bell wrote a paper that said if this process worked on a small scale, there's no reason why it wouldn't work the same on a large scale, like our atmosphere. If we kept burning oil and coal, eventually the level of CO2 in our atmosphere would rise and our atmosphere would start to heat up. Of course he had no idea yet how fast or how dramatically that would happen, but that it would eventually happen is simply a logical consequence of everything known at that point.

Even since, scientists have been working on models to predict how fast that would happen. How fast are we putting CO2 into the atmosphere, what other processes are there that take it out again (photosynthesis, dissolving as acid into the oceans, and a million other factors). Modelling all those effects is where all the work in climate science has been. The basis of the greenhouse effect is very well established, has been confirmed again and again, and you need to be quite detached from reality to deny it. All those alternative theories (it's just "natural variation") do not explain the data we've got, and also fail to explain why the greenhouse effect wouldn't work on this scale.

In recent decades, the urgency of this issue has finally reached political levels, but as one politician coined it, it's a very inconvenient truth that lots of politicians still refuse to accept. Many politicians have very strong ties to the oil industry (see the Iraq War, Iran 1953 and many, many other examples where leading politicians have been completely in bed with oil companies and basically doing their bidding). Some, but still sadly a minority, are finally coming to grips with how important this issue is, but there have been and still are complicit in spreading the misinformation of the oil industry.

And you're doing the same. You're spreading intentional misinformation designed to muddy the issue and postpone necessary measures from being taken. I really strongly hope this was not your intent, and you merely fell for the propaganda, but having access to a bit more background now, I really hope you're going to rethink your position.

[jesterson]

> You were repeating a nonsense conspiracy theory that's completely detached from reality

Again, I suggest you to stay away from statement like that. You have no right or knowledge to make those condescending statements. Moreover, your emotional reaction just show weaknesses of your position.

> Scientists are the ones who've been telling us about climate change for over a century now

Scientists were telling us that "vaccines are safe and effective". Well, statistics shows otherwise.

> In what way? You state this as if it's a fact, but this really depends on what kind of industry changes you're going to impose

The "climate change" agenda asks for huge societal changes in way humans operate vehicles and "emit CO2". This leads not to global impact and redistribution of income across large enterprises mining minerals for batteries, solar panels and sorts.

> But industry changes are normal

Undoubtedly so. Unless changes are non evolutional and incentivised.

> We're talking specifically about climate change caused by the greenhouse effect, caused by putting more CO2 in the atmosphere by burning more fossil fuels.

You cannot pull out "climate change" you like from climate change in general. Our planet is a very complex organism, in which we still have very little knowledge of how things are going on and what depends on what.

The only way to prudently approach the problem is to see available data across many years and try to make conclusions. It will void all fearmongering done by "activists" and "scientists" and politicians of sorts, that's why no-one does that preferring to hide behind scary predictions like "we all will drown in 10 years" which have no supporting whatsoever.

Oil lobby pushing legislation and profiteering from it is nothing new. It does exist - and so does "climate change" lobby.

Now you go ahead and label it as "misinformation" or something like that because it's important to deny logical thinking when someone tries to assess the "climate change". Otherwise inconvenient truth may come out indeed. Easier to do fearmongering.

[mcv]

> I suggest you to stay away from statement like that.

I will not. Reality is important, and repeated denials of reality, like yours, are dangerous and can mislead people. You may call this condescending and emotional, but you're dancing around the fact that you lie and mislead people, and you don't want to be held accountable for that. You get no free pass from me.

> Scientists were telling us that "vaccines are safe and effective". Well, statistics shows otherwise.

Yeah, let's dodge into a completely different topic. But you're wrong here too. Vaccines have saved millions of lives. The effectiveness of vaccines has been well established for centuries. Small pox has been completely eradicated by vaccines. Polio nearly so. That doesn't mean every vaccine is equally effective, but many vaccines clearly are incredibly effective. It's people sowing unfounded doubt about this who are endangering the lives of millions of people now and in the future.

> The "climate change" agenda asks for huge societal changes in way humans operate vehicles and "emit CO2". This leads not to global impact and redistribution of income across large enterprises mining minerals for batteries, solar panels and sorts.

Did you mean to say it doesn't lead to global impact? Then what exactly are you complaining about?

The fact is, something having impact or consequences doesn't mean it's some sort of nefarious evil. It's a natural consequence of tackling problems, but also of new technologies and new opportunities. The invention of the car, the computer, and really every new product that comes to the market leads to "redistribution of income across large enterprises" because that's how capitalism works. I'm not opposed to tackling the problems of capitalism, but I don't want to do that at the cost of millions of lives.

> Unless changes are non evolutional and incentivised.

What the hell does that mean? Are you trying to hide your lack of real arguments behind vague but scary sounding phrases?

> Our planet is a very complex organism, in which we still have very little knowledge of how things are going on and what depends on what.

Which is why scientists have put a lot of effort into studying that. A lot. And so far, there's not a shred of evidence to cast any doubt on the theory that the greenhouse effect does indeed work on a global scale, like Graham Bell predicted over a century ago.

> The only way to prudently approach the problem is to see available data across many years and try to make conclusions.

We've done that.

But what's also prudent is to try to not cause dramatic changes to a complex system we barely understand, and yet that's exactly what we've been doing for the past centuries. We are having an impact on this complex system of Earth's climate, and we are destabilising it, and the fact that we don't fully understand all the complex intricacies yet, is no reason to just blindly continue destabilising it. The prudent thing would be to stop doing that. But that threatens the profits of the most powerful lobby on the planet.

> Oil lobby pushing legislation and profiteering from it is nothing new. It does exist - and so does "climate change" lobby.

Except the oil lobby is trying to protect their trillion dollar profits, whereas the climate lobby is trying to protect the planet. These are not the same.

> it's important to deny logical thinking when someone tries to assess the "climate change".

I was afraid you'd feel that way, but I'm surprised you're this honest about it.

I have tried to get you to think more critically and more logically about this issue, but if you really feel so strongly that it's important to you to reject logical thinking, then there's not much I can do for you. I just hope others who see this will care and not be drawn into your propaganda.

[jesterson]

> Reality is important, and repeated denials of reality, like yours, are dangerous and can mislead people > you're dancing around the fact that you lie and mislead people, and you don't want to be held accountable for that

What a mix of arrogance and ignorance. My friend, you don't own the reality, neither you have right to baselessly accuse anyone of lying. You don't own the truth either. Stop imagining yourself as saviour of humanity, you are nowhere near that.

> Yeah, let's dodge into a completely different topic.

Don't pretend like you didn't understand the message.

> Except the oil lobby is trying to protect their trillion dollar profits, whereas the climate lobby is trying to protect the planet. These are not the same.

This got me laughing hard. Nobody gives a shit about the Planet - you may want to look at "climate change" scam preachers - they use private jets that emit a lot of so hated CO2 while preaching everyone needs to drive electric vehicle. Just follow the money - don't follow what they preach. To believe all those Al Gores want to save the planet is either naive or stupid. I'll let you pick the category of your liking.

All all those conferences, promos that they do and to which they fly on private jets where flight expenditures cost 50k to anywhere above few thousands - who pays all those expenses you think?

I don't expect any coherence from you, but if someone who will read this and still not convinced it's a scam I suggest to have a look what "climate change" preachers were preaching and predicting 10-15-20-30 years ago and how many of those predictions have happened. I'll save you time - it's zero. But don't trust me, do you own research.

> We are having an impact on this complex system of Earth's climate, and we are destabilising it

You are thinking too much of yourself. Nothing is "destabilising" it, this Planet allegedly existed over 4.6bn years, and likely will exist more.

> I have tried to get you to think more critically and more logically about this issue

Congratulations - you have "caught" me on mistype. Glad you enjoyed it. One thing - please don't use "critical thinking" without knowing what that means. Labelling "propaganda", "misinformation", "lies" is exactly opposite of that and you know it well.

[mcv]

> My friend, you don't own the reality,

But neither do you. Reality exists independently from either of us, but only one of us seems to be paying attention to it.

> neither you have right to baselessly accuse anyone of lying.

I'm not doing it baselessly, though. All of the things you've said that I've called out as lies, are lies, blatant untruths, and/or have been thoroughly debunked.

> Don't pretend like you didn't understand the message.

The message that you're not limiting yourself to just one debunked conspiracy theory? Yeah, I got that.

> Nobody gives a shit about the Planet

Don't project your own cynicism on others.

> you may want to look at "climate change" scam preachers - they use private jets

No, those are the oil executives, as well as hypocrites who love to pretend to be doing good while only being in it for attention. The actual climate activists don't fly by private jets, and many of them rarely or never fly at all. I'm not exactly on the forefront of climate activism, but even I haven't flown in years.

You're only paying attention to the rich and famous, and not to the real people on the ground.

You're only paying attention to the hypocrites and think you're pointing out something new when you say they're hypocrites, but everybody knows that already. But because the hypocrites are talking about the environment, you conclude that everybody who talks about the environment must be a hypocrite, and therefore it must be false, but that's not how logic works. There are hypocrites talking about every topic, including yours, but that doesn't make every person on Earth a hypocrite or every topic false.

You're clutching at your own selection bias to prove your own strawman. But the only one who falls for that backwards logic is you.

> I suggest to have a look what "climate change" preachers were preaching and predicting 10-15-20-30 years ago and how many of those predictions have happened. I'll save you time - it's zero. But don't trust me, do you own research.

I'm sure you've cherry-picked your own selection of outrageous claims to prove your point, but if you actually did your research honestly, you'd see it's not zero. Many predictions have come true.

A small selection:

* Temperatures are rising. This has been quite thoroughly documented. I think the past 8 years are the 8 hottest years on record. Most of the hottest years on record have happened since 1998.

* Glaciers are melting. Lots of glaciers are significantly smaller or have disappeared completely.

* Sea ice is melting. North Pole ice is smaller and smaller every year.

* Weather is getting less stable. Some areas get unprecedented floods, others extreme draughts. Blizzards in Texas, balmy weather on the North Pole.

Of course there have been alarmists who turned the thing into a caricature, but those have always been called out as nonsense.

> Nothing is "destabilising" it, this Planet allegedly existed over 4.6bn years, and likely will exist more.

Read more carefully. The climate is destabilising. Not the planet. Nobody is saying the planet will explode. That's even beyond the more usual nonsense caricatures.

[jesterson]

> But neither do you.

Unlike you, I never claimed it.

> All of the things you've said that I've called out as lies, are lies, blatant untruths, and/or have been thoroughly debunked.

As usual, there is no proof of "debunking".

> No, those are the oil executives, as well as hypocrites who love to pretend to be doing good while only being in it for attention

Normally I should have stopped long ago as I normally don't entertain religious fanatics. "Climate change" scam advocates are perfectly fitting your description of hypocrites as to best of my knowledge none of them follows their preachings. It's all entertainment for dumb crowd.

> You're only paying attention to the rich and famous, and not to the real people on the ground.

I am talking about "climate change" preachers. They don't follow what they preach. Certainly some people do follow those preachings, but I have nothing more than pity for them.

> I'm sure you've cherry-picked your own selection of outrageous claims to prove your point, but if you actually did your research honestly, you'd see it's not zero. Many predictions have come true.

I like how you are trying to project your ways of discussion on me :) Says a lot. Just a reminder - I didn't "cherry pick" anything for anyone who can read and encouraged doing their own research. Sapienti sat.

> A small selection:

Your selection is "water is wet". It's not a selection.

> Weather is getting less stable. Some areas get unprecedented floods, others extreme draughts

And this one is outright lie. There is no data supporting it. Droughts, floods happened there over course of history. Just because ww have internet now and can read about it and see photos on Instagram doesn't make it any "less stable". Although I think you know it and just trying to deceive to push your narrative.

> The climate is destabilising

I would ask what this nonsensical sentence means but sorry I have no time to prolong this discussion. Wishing you all the best