\>drugs \>work for coal company \>moronic claims Found the NPC. First off, you're citing a report by the UN... the same people that are trying to flood Europe with "refugees". ------------------------------ Lets (both) stop using insults, and think about this critically: If you were to somehow get a time-machine, go forward 30 years to the year 2048, and see that the doomsday scenarios warned about by scientists and other government bodies in 2018 were not true. Would this change your mind? If they had got it completely wrong? Global Warming first started to come to prominence around 1988, with the emergence of climate models that predicted that if we "didn't do something" the temperature would keep getting hotter, oceans melt, etc, etc. Back then, we couldn't know if it was true or not, but now, 30 years after the emergence of the global warming/climate change theory, we sure can. And none of the predictions that were drilled into us as high school students, and were used as the foundation for the entire global warming / climate change hypothesis have come true. The underlying problem with all of these studies is that all the models incorporate a positive feedback system. IE, the warmer the earth gets; the more evaporation from the sea; which creates more of a "greenhouse" effect; which results in a higher temperature; and repeat. In reality, this does not occur. But none of that really matters. Because even if you were the kind of person that was never fortunate enough to learn to read, and couldn't make head not tails of what was said, you could still realise that they changed the name. First it was global warming, but now it's climate change. So which one is it? Is the earth getting too hot? Or too cold? If getting too hot was the original problem, why are we now upset that it's actually getting colder? [Oceania is not, and has never been, at war with Eurasia. Rather, Oceania is, and always has been, at war with Eastasia](https://www.sparknotes.com/lit/1984/section8/). If "pollution" was the original cause of warming, why wouldn't we just "pollute" more to cancel out the coldness? And the solution to all this, it seems, is CO2 restrictions. Nasa will put out article after article [about how CO2 is on the rise](https://climate.nasa.gov/climate_resources/24/graphic-the-relentless-rise-of-carbon-dioxide/) but will only display the data that is convenient to them. When looking across a much larger timeline, it's shown that CO2 levels and emissions were [much, much higher than what we have now](http://www.biocab.org/Geological_TS_SL_and_CO2.jpg). CO2 is plant food: the more of it we have in the air, the higher crop yield we can get, and the more easier it is for plants. In fact, if it gets too low, that's a [REALLY bad thing](https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/06/30/life-on-earth-was-nearly-doomed-by-too-little-co2/). We can debate global warming and climate change till the cows come home, but ultimately, it's irrelevant. What matters is: a) is it actually bad? What part is bad? Too hot or too cold? CO2? b) is it natural or man-made? Until there is firm evidence that it's mostly caused by humans, we shouldn't be spending any money on it. c) what is it going to cost and for how much change? Right now, it will cost the developed world trillions of dollars, and the net effect will be less than the standard temperature fluctuation. If you find a study with the hard numbers, please do share, but from memory, it will cost trillions of dollars each year, and the net outcome after 20 years will be a 1.5°C reduction in the increase it would have otherwise been, 1,000,000,000,000 dollars every year is a lot of money, mate. It's more than the [entire US welfare budget inclusive of medicaid](http://federalsafetynet.com/welfare-budget.html). Here's a really good source I've found. No science is simple for those not of the field, but this does well to explain things in simple terms that makes sense: https://mises.org/library/skeptics-case --------------------------------------------------- Really, you've just got to follow the money. Renewable/alternative energy is not at the level that it needs to be yet, but people still need power, so they're still going to need coal and oil. When developed countries impose (carbon) taxes for mining their own resources, the local energy companies cannot compete, other countries (middle east) don't give a shit about climate change, and so they sell their oil and coal to the other nations, and at higher price - do you remember how expensive oil (and petrol) got during the obama years? Renewable energy is important, and will come to the market organically once it becomes economically viable, but we're not doing ourselves any favours by haemorrhaging massive amounts of money to appease the cult of climate change "science".