[npoc]

There is no man-made global warming crisis. The earth is in fact one of the coldest periods in history.

Thoroughly explained here: https://youtu.be/KDwCUAueLUU

What the "man-made global warming crisis" is, is an example of how a corrupt/captured state will overreach and control the people for its own gain through manipulation. Many governments are captured by the now global financial system that has almost unlimited power due to its money printers. It charges interest on money that it prints out of thin air. By leveraging its existing power to steer the governments to spend money it is able to effectively spend printed money (governemnt loans) on itself and then receive interest on that money as a bonus. A positive feedback loop that ends in global domination by the unelected financial system with the national and international central banks at its heart. Even worse is that it's power obtained essentially through fraud - it's all based on lending out something for interest that isn't theirs. It started with them lending out gold that people had given them to safely look after in their vaults.

[jbstack]

I disagree strongly with you on this, but nonetheless I think you've proven the point that the original comment was making i.e. that what constitutes a "good" or a "bad" government is subject to people's views.

In my view, a government that does nothing to tackle global warming is "bad". In your view, a government that spends resources on something you think is a fraud, is also "bad". We can't both be right.

[npoc]

We can both be right - when man-made global warming isn't actually a thing.

I agree that

> a government that does nothing to tackle global warming is "bad"

and I think you would likely also agree that

> a government that spends resources on something you think is a fraud, is also "bad"

The only difference is that it has managed to convince you that man-made global warming is real, just like it did me for a long time.

[b112]

Nonsense. The Earth used to be a boiling lump of magma at once point before it cooled, but guess what -- humans can't live on liquid rock. Warmest or coolest is irrelevant over the lifetime of the Earth. What matters is "modern humans".

Global warming is indeed real. Effective change doesn't have to cost a dime. An example is forcing people to buy electric cars at some point. The government spends nothing, people just buy new cars when their old cars expire, now people are driving new cars. Solved.

(you may notice that incentives are gone in most countries now)

And if the weirdos would stop trying to crush every tiny part of carbon emissions, dams provide an immense amount of cheap, clean power once built. We can even make concrete using low-emission methods. Regardless, dams are far better than coal or gas (yes they are random anti-concrete weirdos), so moving on a path to 'better' is laudable and helpful.

(Yes, anti-concrete weirdos are either useful idiots or secret lobbyists. Why? Well, my city puts more concrete into new basements in a single year, than go into a dam that lasts 50 years. Yet I only hear people blather on about dams, which would save immense pollution from coal, the worst polluter it would replace. Also, I've now out-conspiracied the conspiracy guy I'm replying to.)

Power plants expire, whether gas, coal, etc, and instead of revamp you slowly build new, and expire the old.

None of this has to cost. There is no cabal to enact global warming related change.

[npoc]

To clarify I meant over the last 5 million years.

There has been no man-made climate change during the period of "modern humans" either.

It's not a conspiracy as such - it helps to think of government and corporations as an AI. A hive intelligence with constraints and goals. The constraint is to operate within legislation and keep the people on board, the reward/goal is to acquire money/power.

At this stage the financial system (which we gave a money printer!) has obtained enough power to steer legislation in its favour and keep the people on board though manipulation of the mainstream media and education.

Show me the incentives and I'll show you the outcome.

I completely agree that there's no reason why we can't replace power plants with more environmentally friendly ones as they are retired, but ask yourself why Germany then has shut down it's fully operational nuclear power plants. Even with energy shortage and the many of the plants ready to be turned back on tomorrow, the state refuses to.

[n4r9]

Manmade climate change is in the context of the last two millenia. The issue is not just the absolute temperature but the rate of change and human survivability. Homo sapiens only evolved ~200k years ago.

[n4r9]

Requiring people to watch a 1hr+ video to understand your argument is a big red flag.

[npoc]

Why's that? A topic as big as this takes quite a lot of refuting.

If you're interested in finding the truth, then you'll at least begin watching it to see if it offers any promise.

[const_cast]

The trouble with videos is you can just... choose not to include stuff that obviously refutes your argument.

The reality is that global warming is definitely happening, and also the Earth is definitely not flat. But it's pretty easy to make a super convincing argument that the Earth is flat - you just don't mention any of the math behind why the Earth is round and then you can have a 5 hour long video filled to the brim with evidence the Earth is flat.

And it's not even lying. We're not saying anything that's not true. We're just choosing to omit data and evidence that proves us wrong. We can even include fake data and evidence, if we want, and refute that - ie build a strawman.

[npoc]

But surely that holds true for any evidence? Much of the video is showing how (and why) the government-funded evidence for global warming is wrong.

[n4r9]

Videos are a terrible way to convey logical arguments. It's much harder to skip back and forth, search for specific bits, etc ... . They're for entertainment, which encourages a suspension of critical thinking. If you're confident there's a solid argument to be made, make it in text so it can easily be analysed and challenged.

[npoc]

I disagree completely. Videos allow you to time-stamp exact moments for reference and provide animated evidence, rather than just stills. Some videos are meant for entertainment, others are not. Same goes for books and other text-based media. Life itself is presented to our brains in a dynamic audio-visual format - does that encourage the suspension of critical thinking, or does it provide more nuance not available in just words and static pictures?

[n4r9]

> Videos allow you to ... provide animated evidence.

If you want to do that, far better to embed animations in a mostly-textual doc.

> Life itself is presented to our brains in a dynamic audio-visual format ... does that encourage the suspension of critical thinking?

Yes, to an extent. Or at least text allows critical thinking more easily than the average conversation does. Text makes it really easy to pause and think for a moment before reading on. Or to check back on something you vaguely remember reading beforehand. It's a more active form of ingest than watching a video. Video-makers have many more techniques at their disposal to slip their narrative past critical filters, such as varying the speed of delivery, or using music to invoke emotional reactions.

[n4r9]

I watched the first ten minutes. It's the standard boring exercise of cherry picking a few theoretical physicists who weigh in on climate science despite having little to no experience in it.

[npoc]

Well, I'm afraid that that only goes to prove errors in your intuition and critical thinking skills. Your facts are incorrect and your logic uses an appeal to (lack of) authority fallacy.

[n4r9]

The ten minutes I watched was one big appeal to authority. "Here's Doctor X, a highly respected scientist. Look at all the big name universities he's linked to. Listen to him waffle on about how he thinks climate science is corrupt."

Appeal to authority is a dubious fallacy to invoke in the first place. If I need to assume something about (let's say) geology - which I know little about and haven't the time to research myself - I'm going to trust the general consensus of professional geologists. I'm not going to waste my time listening to a marine biologist who sounds like a crank and claims they've discovered that the whole field is bogus.

"If you're interested in finding the truth, you'll at least" check out this (surprise surprise, textual) take-down of the movie, with a comprehensive set of links debunking (in, surprise surprise, text form) the hackneyed climate myths that it brings up: https://skepticalscience.com/climate-the-movie-a-hot-mess-of...

[hgomersall]

Thoroughly debunked here: https://www.lse.ac.uk/granthaminstitute/news/fake-graphs-and... And here: https://science.feedback.org/review/review-climate-the-movie...

That film is full of misleading nonsense. Like, charts that have been altered to apparently suit a narrative.