[smonn_]

I'd recommend watching this video if you'd like to know the more nuanced story behind climate change: https://youtu.be/oqu5DjzOBF8 I am not qualified at all to really comment on it but this did open my eyes to how confusing the entire thing is.

[machina_ex_deus]

I know that video. The thing is, when you get to this point, it should've been pretty clear for any honest scientists that you shouldn't trust the narrative / story, you should do the full calculation, and be honest about how trustworthy the calculation is.

The picture presented is as if the story is already enough (it definitely isn't), and the shortcomings of the calculations are not important, while the truth is that the story was heavily biased, and the calculations are very important. And the calculations really are dumpster fire.

[smonn_]

I have to agree, when money and interests like with the situation around climate change are involved its hard to do actual science, it just turns into a fucked up manipulation game.

[lern_too_spel]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berkeley_Earth was funded by the Charles A. Koch Foundation, which hoped to get a contrarian result backed by real science. The study lead was a climate science skeptic at the time. It reached the same conclusion as everyone else.

Decades earlier, ExxonMobil spent millions to do its own science and came to the same conclusion. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/exxon-knew-about-...

It's not hard to do the science. It's hard to be truthful about the results when they affect your bottom line.