The World Has Already Ended, and the News Media Is Keeping It From Us

[Mithrae]

:shock:

Articles from the UN, IPCC Mitigation plan, reports provided from previous meetings in Paris, Rio, going back as far as the first environmental conference in 1992.

Am I to conclude you believe nobody will be required to change anything they are doing, and that it will be nothing but status quo? Please confirm so I can understand where your "No" is coming from.

So just to be clear here: In your mind, if ever anybody is required to change anything they are doing, any deviation from the status quo, that is automatically a "fundamental change in the way human beings go about living and working" requiring the "total subservience of every human being on the planet," and proves there is some massive collusion effort amongst the planet's scientists and governments in order to take over the world.

Wow.

 

[ocean515]

So just to be clear here: In your mind, if ever anybody is required to change anything they are doing, any deviation from the status quo, that is automatically a "fundamental change in the way human beings go about living and working" requiring the "total subservience of every human being on the planet," and proves there is some massive collusion effort amongst the planet's scientists and governments in order to take over the world.

Wow.

I asked a question. I'm not interested to learn how you avoid answering it. Nor am I interested in seeing how you are denying the simple facts I stated. You attributed them to a conspiracy theory.

It's one of the fatal flaws of the AGWist support network. An inability to be honest, which given the stakes, is truly pathetic.

 

[Mithrae]

I asked a question. I'm not interested to learn how you avoid answering it. Nor am I interested in seeing how you are denying the simple facts I stated. You attributed them to a conspiracy theory.

It's one of the fatal flaws of the AGWist support network. An inability to be honest, which given the stakes, is truly pathetic.

There's no need to be insulting. I directly and truthfully answered your question. Obviously it wasn't the answer you were hoping for, but when you think about it isn't that your problem, not mine? Presumably there must have been something wrong with either your hopes or your question. So the thing to do now is to try and explain your reasoning to me, help me to understand where you're coming from and why you were pinning all your hopes on a single yes or no question.

 

[ocean515]

There's no need to be insulting. I directly and truthfully answered your question. Obviously it wasn't the answer you were hoping for, but when you think about it isn't that your problem, not mine? Presumably there must have been something wrong with either your hopes or your question. So the thing to do now is to try and explain your reasoning to me, help me to understand where you're coming from and why you were pinning all your hopes on a single yes or no question.

No you didn't. You insulted me, so don't try to act offended.

I made a statement of fact which you have dodged over and over. I don't need to explain anything.

You need to explain why you are trying to deny the agenda, and the solution, and what it means to every human being living on the planet.

 

[Mithrae]

No you didn't. You insulted me, so don't try to act offended.

I made a statement of fact which you have dodged over and over. I don't need to explain anything.

You need to explain why you are trying to deny the agenda, and the solution, and what it means to every human being living on the planet.

Deny it? I'm not even sure what this big scary "agenda" you're talking about is! :doh

I mean, if I decided to install solar panels to power my home, that'd benefit some Aussie manufacturer a bit, and I suppose a local installation company. It wouldn't benefit Maurice Strong or Rajendra Pachauri or Albert Gore or any of those other scary names in the slightest. It wouldn't even benefit the Australian government; if anything, they'd potentially lose some ongoing tax income because my electricity company would be losing most or all of the revenue it was getting from me. Where's the international agenda there?

Maybe instead I and thousands of other households would just ask our electricity companies to increase their ratio of wind and solar power on our behalf. The energy company doesn't care; as long as they've got their profit margin they don't give a damn how the electricity is actually generated. Of course the Aussie manufacturers of wind turbines and and solar panels would be happy, and the coal miners would be sad. But again, this doesn't benefit Barack Obama or Francois Hollande or Xi Jinping even the tiniest little bit. Mining is a much more powerful lobby in Australia than solar panel manufacturers; maybe that's part of why our current government isn't keen on doing much about climate change. Where is the world domination agenda here?

I suppose I could also choose to take a train to work instead of driving, or get an electric car. The rail and electricity companies are happy, the petroleum industry is sad. But Svante Arrhenius, Guy Callendar and Charles Keeling are not a single penny wealthier. Governments might prefer people to take public transport to reduce road congestion, but if I go the electric car option that really doesn't help them any. How does this promote an agenda for any scientists to falsify data or reach unjustified conclusions?



Maybe Lord of Planar or Polgara could help to explain this in a way that I can understand, since they seem to think that you are stating "simple facts" and that I am being dishonest and "pathetic" by answering your question and asking what point you're trying to make here?

 

[ocean515]

Deny it? I'm not even sure what this big scary "agenda" you're talking about is! :doh

I mean, if I decided to install solar panels to power my home, that'd benefit some Aussie manufacturer a bit, and I suppose a local installation company. It wouldn't benefit Maurice Strong or Rajendra Pachauri or Albert Gore or any of those other scary names in the slightest. It wouldn't even benefit the Australian government; if anything, they'd potentially lose some ongoing tax income because my electricity company would be losing most or all of the revenue it was getting from me. Where's the international agenda there?

Maybe instead I and thousands of other households would just ask our electricity companies to increase their ratio of wind and solar power on our behalf. The energy company doesn't care; as long as they've got their profit margin they don't give a damn how the electricity is actually generated. Of course the Aussie manufacturers of wind turbines and and solar panels would be happy, and the coal miners would be sad. But again, this doesn't benefit Barack Obama or Francois Hollande or Xi Jinping even the tiniest little bit. Mining is a much more powerful lobby in Australia than solar panel manufacturers; maybe that's part of why our current government isn't keen on doing much about climate change. Where is the world domination agenda here?

I suppose I could also choose to take a train to work instead of driving, or get an electric car. The rail and electricity companies are happy, the petroleum industry is sad. But Svante Arrhenius, Guy Callendar and Charles Keeling are not a single penny wealthier. Governments might prefer people to take public transport to reduce road congestion, but if I go the electric car option that really doesn't help them any. How does this promote an agenda for any scientists to falsify data or reach unjustified conclusions?



Maybe Lord of Planar or Polgara could help to explain this in a way that I can understand?

I'm not sure if you are being purposefully obtuse, or if you are truly that misinformed. Given my interaction with other acolytes of AGW, I pick the former.

I stated quite simply that in order for the human population to meet the objectives the global AGW regulators are setting, every man, woman, and child living on the planet will have to fall in line with the all the requirements being discussed. This means changes in how they live, how and where they work, and based on current discussions, perhaps even what they eat.

All these changes will be mandated by the commitment of the governing partners. The people setting these targets, and outlining the agenda, are not elected by the human race, they are appointed in most cases. They are beholding to nobody their actions will impact.

These a facts. If you chose to be ignorant of them, or want to deny they exist, that is your choice. This denial appears to be universal among AGW supporters. It does explain why they can't fathom a single question related to this part of the AGW plan.

 

[Mithrae]

I'm not sure if you are being purposefully obtuse, or if you are truly that misinformed. Given my interaction with other acolytes of AGW, I pick the former.

I stated quite simply that in order for the human population to meet the objectives the global AGW regulators are setting, every man, woman, and child living on the planet will have to fall in line with the all the requirements being discussed. This means changes in how they live, how and where they work, and based on current discussions, perhaps even what they eat.

All these changes will be mandated by the commitment of the governing partners. The people setting these targets, and outlining the agenda, are not elected by the human race, they are appointed in most cases. They are beholding to nobody their actions will impact.

These a facts. If you chose to be ignorant of them, or want to deny they exist, that is your choice. This denial appears to be universal among AGW supporters. It does explain why they can't fathom a single question related to this part of the AGW plan.

Let's pretend for the sake of argument that all of what you've said here is true: It still has no bearing whatsoever on the facts of climate science.

Again, that's like trying to argue that the existence of nuclear non-proliferation commitments is evidence that there aren't any nukes!

If there's an issue, sensible people - even if they are economists, governments and businesses - would start thinking about how to deal with that issue. You're still pretty vague on any kind of details here, but obviously you don't like the way 'they' are thinking about dealing with it.

Fair enough. But hating someone's answer, or what you think their answer is, does not change the original issue :lol:

 

[polgara]

I'm not sure if you are being purposefully obtuse, or if you are truly that misinformed. Given my interaction with other acolytes of AGW, I pick the former.

I stated quite simply that in order for the human population to meet the objectives the global AGW regulators are setting, every man, woman, and child living on the planet will have to fall in line with the all the requirements being discussed. This means changes in how they live, how and where they work, and based on current discussions, perhaps even what they eat.

All these changes will be mandated by the commitment of the governing partners. The people setting these targets, and outlining the agenda, are not elected by the human race, they are appointed in most cases. They are beholding to nobody their actions will impact.

These a facts. If you chose to be ignorant of them, or want to deny they exist, that is your choice. This denial appears to be universal among AGW supporters. It does explain why they can't fathom a single question related to this part of the AGW plan.

Greetings, ocean515. :2wave:

There are several comments I would like to make on this topic:

1. First and foremost, my concern has always been what happens to our Constitution and Bill of Rights if we are under the jurisdiction of a world-wide governing body? They would have to be scrapped or otherwise made null and void, since it gives us rights and freedoms most of the rest of the world do not enjoy, and I don't believe they will make an exception for America!

2. As I have posted several times on DP, I contacted a company a few years ago that specialized in solar, and learned to my shock that we don't get sufficient sunlight here in NE Ohio to justify trying to go solar. They said they'd love to have my business, since that is their means of making money, but felt the need to honestly explain the facts. I thanked them, they left, and I forgot about going solar! No wonder I haven't seen any homes in this area that rely on solar-generated power! We do have several nuclear plants within an hour's drive, though - one near Lake Erie, and one to the SE of us in Piqua, Ohio - so they are producing the electricity we use in this area. We apparently don't get enough wind here to use windmills as a means of power generation, either!

3. I'm not even going to discuss the exchanges that will handle the credits that will be bought and sold, because I don't know enough about that area, but unless you have lots of money, you aren't going to be able to participate anyway, so why bother.

 

[Russell797]

Why are you locked into a total denial defense? It's not remotely rational to deny the effort being put forth by global government/regulatory bodies to deal with the issue. The denial borders on obsessive delusion.

I can only conclude this response, which unfortunately has become almost universal, is a strong indicator of cult like obsession.

The execution of the plan to address AGW being worked out by the UN and other global bodies, requires a fundamental change in the way human beings go about living and working.

Yes, or No?

No. Where and how we get the energy to power what we do is the issue. How to drastically reduce carbon dioxide emissions on a global scale and to do it quickly is by far the issue of greatest concern.

 

[ocean515]

Let's pretend for the sake of argument that all of what you've said here is true: It still has no bearing whatsoever on the facts of climate science.

Again, that's like trying to argue that the existence of nuclear non-proliferation commitments is evidence that there aren't any nukes!

If there's an issue, sensible people - even if they are economists, governments and businesses - would start thinking about how to deal with that issue. You're still pretty vague on any kind of details here, but obviously you don't like the way 'they' are thinking about dealing with it.

Fair enough. But hating someone's answer, or what you think their answer is, does not change the original issue :lol:

:doh

It is all true, as you're offhandedly admitting.

And yes, it does tie into the science. AGWist dismiss the multitudes of adjustments, rethinking, errors, manipulated data, and other goings on in the science by claiming it's all new, but the evidence is overwhelming AGW is real.

Underscoring all this unsettled science, still fraught with challenges, is the solution track. The entire human race will be expected to participate, regardless, and based on the agenda agreed to in writing, it will involve loss of freedom, and economic sacrifice.

This "Trust me, I promise to love you in the morning" would be interesting on a local scale. But this is global and involves every human being living on the planet.

Ignoring the ever present snark and dismissiveness in your posts, actual rational minds would and do have questions in light of the ask.

As it is now, the facts are, the models continue to need attention, adjustments are a common occurrence in order to maintain conclusion of theory, and the entire human race must follow directions because a group of unelected people said so.

Why is it so difficult for AGWist's to not grasp the reason so many people are concerned with these facts and the scenario I just explained?

 

[ocean515]

Greetings, ocean515. :2wave:

There are several comments I would like to make on this topic:

1. First and foremost, my concern has always been what happens to our Constitution and Bill of Rights if we are under the jurisdiction of a world-wide governing body? They would have to be scrapped or otherwise made null and void, since it gives us rights and freedoms most of the rest of the world do not enjoy, and I don't believe they will make an exception for America!

2. As I have posted several times on DP, I contacted a company a few years ago that specialized in solar, and learned to my shock that we don't get sufficient sunlight here in NE Ohio to justify trying to go solar. They said they'd love to have my business, since that is their means of making money, but felt the need to honestly explain the facts. I thanked them, they left, and I forgot about going solar! No wonder I haven't seen any homes in this area that rely on solar-generated power! We do have several nuclear plants within an hour's drive, though - one near Lake Erie, and one to the SE of us in Piqua, Ohio - so they are producing the electricity we use in this area. We apparently don't get enough wind here to use windmills as a means of power generation, either!

3. I'm not even going to discuss the exchanges that will handle the credits that will be bought and sold, because I don't know enough about that area, but unless you have lots of money, you aren't going to be able to participate anyway, so why bother.

Great comments Polgara.

Allow me to comment myself on your first one.

If one researches the early foundation of what has become the Climate Change Agenda, the words of the original organizers can be read. Indeed, they wrote and said, the future of the human race depends on a fundamental change in how it operates. The human race must live as one, not through individual nations.

Creators of the movement like Maurice Strong voiced these sentiments. They are in transcripts from the first global environmental conference in Rio in 1992. The UN IPCC is in effect, his creation towards that end goal. It appears AGW is just the methodology to achieve it.

 

[ocean515]

No. Where and how we get the energy to power what we do is the issue. How to drastically reduce carbon dioxide emissions on a global scale and to do it quickly is by far the issue of greatest concern.

Actually, if you do the research, read the papers available on the subject from the UN itself, the number one issue of greatest concern involves treasure. Specifically money transfer from the West. The challenges making the theory work are just a pesky annoyance.

This is a fact. Central to all discussion going on at every single meeting, including Paris, is the money transfer and commitment. The UN mitigation effort explains trillions will be required every single year.

And the basic science supporting this financial demand still has a difficult time supporting itself.

The trillions to be taken from the West are not fully earmarked to defined need. Look it up. It's windfall time for many "developing" Nations. Interesting how their "leaders" are the most vocal. Imagine being handed $10's of billions of dollars, and all you have to do to get your hands on it, is say, Climate Change mitigation.

It will make the actions of the IOC look pedestrian.

So, you'll have to work far harder to make your case than using what amounts to an AGW meme.

 

[polgara]

Actually, if you do the research, read the papers available on the subject from the UN itself, the number one issue of greatest concern involves treasure. Specifically money transfer from the West. The challenges making the theory work are just a pesky annoyance.

This is a fact. Central to all discussion going on at every single meeting, including Paris, is the money transfer and commitment. The UN mitigation effort explains trillions will be required every single year.

And the basic science supporting this financial demand still has a difficult time supporting itself.

The trillions to be taken from the West are not fully earmarked to defined need. Look it up. It's windfall time for many "developing" Nations. Interesting how their "leaders" are the most vocal. Imagine being handed $10's of billions of dollars, and all you have to do to get your hands on it, is say, Climate Change mitigation.

It will make the actions of the IOC look pedestrian.

So, you'll have to work far harder to make your case than using what amounts to an AGW meme.

BHO has already given our first check for $450 million dollars to the UN to show his commitment to the cause of AGW, on a "voluntary" basis, since it was agreed at the meeting that no one would be forced to participate! Uh huh. Taxpayers who provide the spending money to run government didn't even get to vote on it, nor did we even learn about it until after it was done! God, it's pathetic to watch this great country go bankrupt just because we're so easy to fool! Dictators with their hands out to receive a windfall must truly love us! :2mad:

 

[Russell797]

Actually, if you do the research, read the papers available on the subject from the UN itself, the number one issue of greatest concern involves treasure. Specifically money transfer from the West. The challenges making the theory work are just a pesky annoyance.

This is a fact. Central to all discussion going on at every single meeting, including Paris, is the money transfer and commitment. The UN mitigation effort explains trillions will be required every single year.

And the basic science supporting this financial demand still has a difficult time supporting itself.

The trillions to be taken from the West are not fully earmarked to defined need. Look it up. It's windfall time for many "developing" Nations. Interesting how their "leaders" are the most vocal. Imagine being handed $10's of billions of dollars, and all you have to do to get your hands on it, is say, Climate Change mitigation.

It will make the actions of the IOC look pedestrian.

So, you'll have to work far harder to make your case than using what amounts to an AGW meme.

I don't have to spend any of my time reading up on your conspiracy theories. I spend my time understanding science and learning for pleasure. Also, having worked in a tangential scientific field provides me with knowledge pertinent to the scientific basis for AGW. It has nothing to do with the nonsense crap you are concerned with.

So, I have done the work where it matters. AGW is something we must deal with, like it or not. If you don't care for the proposed mitigation stratigies then you guys should come up with other ideas rather than denying the issue like an ostrich or envisioning a vast international, underground cabal in your world of paranoia.

 

[joG]

No. Where and how we get the energy to power what we do is the issue. How to drastically reduce carbon dioxide emissions on a global scale and to do it quickly is by far the issue of greatest concern.

It is quite right that governments are engaged in preparing the population for the consequences of reducing climate gases. Their approaches are careful, because they know that no government can survive the fallout of taking so much away from people used to having it. As technologies come on-line that are making the travers less painful governments are becoming more active. But we are still a way away from turning the corner and I presume we will need considerable technological advances before we can think of a sincere attempt at carbon neutrality. That technology seems to be coming, but is not yet in place.

My main problem with the political capital spent on the switch is that it is very likely not necessary, as we do not seem to be getting the situation of international security under control. The structure of that game is much more immediately dangerous than climate gas production and will almost certainly cause a billion deaths and probably more by the end of the century, if we do not contain the threat. And we will not contain it, if we spend the capital on managing this challenge on other things.

 

[joG]

I don't have to spend any of my time reading up on your conspiracy theories. I spend my time understanding science and learning for pleasure. Also, having worked in a tangential scientific field provides me with knowledge pertinent to the scientific basis for AGW. It has nothing to do with the nonsense crap you are concerned with.

So, I have done the work where it matters. AGW is something we must deal with, like it or not. If you don't care for the proposed mitigation stratigies then you guys should come up with other ideas rather than denying the issue like an ostrich or envisioning a vast international, underground cabal in your world of paranoia.

No question that we might be forced to deal with AGW. I doubt that we will be able to at present technologies, as the populations will not easily be persuaded to give up all of the things they have come to love like Hamburgers and travel. This seems to be being confirmed in countries that had been leaders of the movement, where the carry through is wavering already. So the way forward should probably be or even have to be via invention, unless one wants to impose a totally new way of live by coercion.

The argument that people today should live much less well so that people not yet born can live better, is not persuasive in a society that thinks abortion is a valid instrument of career planing.

 

[joG]

BHO has already given our first check for $450 million dollars to the UN to show his commitment to the cause of AGW, on a "voluntary" basis, since it was agreed at the meeting that no one would be forced to participate! Uh huh. Taxpayers who provide the spending money to run government didn't even get to vote on it, nor did we even learn about it until after it was done! God, it's pathetic to watch this great country go bankrupt just because we're so easy to fool! Dictators with their hands out to receive a windfall must truly love us! :2mad:

$ 450 millions? That is literally peanuts. To get anywhere near carbon neutrality at today's technology will literally take the Hamburger off of your bun.

 

[longview]

No question that we might be forced to deal with AGW. I doubt that we will be able to at present technologies, as the populations will not easily be persuaded to give up all of the things they have come to love like Hamburgers and travel. This seems to be being confirmed in countries that had been leaders of the movement, where the carry through is wavering already. So the way forward should probably be or even have to be via invention, unless one wants to impose a totally new way of live by coercion.

The argument that people today should live much less well so that people not yet born can live better, is not persuasive in a society that thinks abortion is a valid instrument of career planing.

I am not sure I can agree that we will be forced to deal with AGW.
We have several real problems like energy and fresh water, that far exceed the impact of AGW, in both the near and long term.
Addressing our global energy problem (I.E. figuring out how to bring the rest of the world up to western standards),
will solve any issues with CO2 that may or may not exists.
To me, it is painfully obvious that the supply of cheap easy oil is coming to an end.
The current over supply, caused from fracking wells, is a symptom of the easy oil running down.
Within a few years the price of oil will start to rise again, but will hit a ceiling, when the feedstock
price to the refineries, exceeds the cost of making their own feedstock from scratch.
This will be roughly $90 per barrel, with current technology.
Synthetic fuels: Audi e-fuels > Product > We live responsibility > AUDI AG
I think the refinery components of existing oil companies are well positioned to take advantage of the new technology.
The cracking units can do more than reassembly the olefins, but make them from water, CO2, and energy.
The rest of the distribution infrastructure, all the way to the gas pumps, is already in place.
The best technology change, is one that is transparent to the end user!

 

[ocean515]

BHO has already given our first check for $450 million dollars to the UN to show his commitment to the cause of AGW, on a "voluntary" basis, since it was agreed at the meeting that no one would be forced to participate! Uh huh. Taxpayers who provide the spending money to run government didn't even get to vote on it, nor did we even learn about it until after it was done! God, it's pathetic to watch this great country go bankrupt just because we're so easy to fool! Dictators with their hands out to receive a windfall must truly love us! :2mad:

Read the part in the following about infrastructure, and then think about the corruption in the IOC with bribes, and outrageous construction kick backs.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/nov/25/developing-countries-will-need-270bn-more-to-adapt-to-climate-change-study

At Copenhagen climate summit six years ago, developing countries were promised $100bn a year to help mitigate climate change and adapt to its consequences. Around two-thirds of this money has already been paid.

But last year just 16% of the climate aid money was used to help the world’s poorest countries adapt to impacts such as flooding, drought and other severe weather events.

Instead most climate finance already processed has been spent on preventative measures – such as investments in renewable energy – to help rein in climate change​

 

[Russell797]

No question that we might be forced to deal with AGW. I doubt that we will be able to at present technologies, as the populations will not easily be persuaded to give up all of the things they have come to love like Hamburgers and travel. This seems to be being confirmed in countries that had been leaders of the movement, where the carry through is wavering already. So the way forward should probably be or even have to be via invention, unless one wants to impose a totally new way of live by coercion.

The argument that people today should live much less well so that people not yet born can live better, is not persuasive in a society that thinks abortion is a valid instrument of career planing.

There is no argument that people today should live much less well so that people not yet born can live better. What difference does it make to you where the energy comes from to power your electrical outlets? The other big elephant in the room is transportation and that will be powered by electricity too. The technologies exist to do this on a massive scale. What is lacking is the desire.

 

[longview]

There is no argument that people today should live much less well so that people not yet born can live better. What difference does it make to you where the energy comes from to power your electrical outlets? The other big elephant in the room is transportation and that will be powered by electricity too. The technologies exist to do this on a massive scale. What is lacking is the desire.

Human ground transport is not a big deal, Jets, Ships, and tractors are a bigger deal.
Batteries are no where near the energy density necessary, to move a plane load of people several thousand miles,
or push a container ship across the ocean. (The ship carries weight better, so may have a chance.)

 

[Mithrae]

:doh

It is all true, as you're offhandedly admitting.

And yes, it does tie into the science.

How so? Why do you keep trying to deny that you're promoting a conspiracy theory, when what you are proposing literally requires a conspiracy of most of the world's climate scientists?

AGWist dismiss the multitudes of adjustments, rethinking, errors, manipulated data, and other goings on in the science by claiming it's all new, but the evidence is overwhelming AGW is real.

If you have such evidence then why aren't you presenting it? If you're looking for immutable dogma, you should be going to a church; if you want to talk about science, you'll have to start understanding that improvements on existing knowledge is the whole point of the enterprise.

We've already seen an example in this thread of how scary your alleged "manipulated data" is: The raw global temperature trend since 1900 of roughly +0.8°C has been adjusted up to about +0.82°C! :shock: So far no-one has even shown that the corrections are in any way suspect, let alone explaining how that is important to a world domination agenda!

 

[ocean515]

How so? Why do you keep trying to deny that you're promoting a conspiracy theory, when what you are proposing literally requires a conspiracy of most of the world's climate scientists?



If you have such evidence then why aren't you presenting it? If you're looking for immutable dogma, you should be going to a church; if you want to talk about science, you'll have to start understanding that improvements on existing knowledge is the whole point of the enterprise.

We've already seen an example in this thread of how scary your alleged "manipulated data" is: The raw global temperature trend since 1900 of roughly +0.8°C has been adjusted up to about +0.82°C! :shock: So far no-one has even shown that the corrections are in any way suspect, let alone explaining how that is important to a world domination agenda!

If "conspiracy theory" is the only place you can go when all I'm doing is citing the exact agenda and action the UN has stated in writing, then I have nothing else to offer.

Why am I not presenting evidence? What more do you need?

You've devoted a significant amount of time and energy over a very long period of time explaining why adjustments and other issues regarding the science and theory don't change anything.

I've focused as much, or perhaps even more time, looking into the proposed solution. I haven't offered any opinion, only facts that you claim are conspiracy. As such, I guess you think the whole UN effort is a conspiracy because it's their words and their actions.

UNEP - Climate Change - Finance - Home

https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg3/en/tssts-ts-12-3-implications-of.html

Opening Statement

Invest Trillions Today to Keep Climate Change at Bay: IEA - Scientific American

 

[Lord of Planar]

How so? Why do you keep trying to deny that you're promoting a conspiracy theory, when what you are proposing literally requires a conspiracy of most of the world's climate scientists?

How is doing what is best for one's career and money, a conspiracy?

 

[Jack Hays]

How so? Why do you keep trying to deny that you're promoting a conspiracy theory, when what you are proposing literally requires a conspiracy of most of the world's climate scientists?

No conspiracy at all. Merely rational individual career decisions.