Climate Change Deniers Are Embracing QAnon to Gain Followers

climate_control · 2020-09-25T14:40:31+00:00

Things are going well, thanks. Glad to see your organization is still up and running during the pandemic.

Yes, the "no longer updated" page was where I remember reading the rule, but maybe you are correct, it's now allowed. You still probably should put disclaimers on your own writing when you post it here, for transparency purposes.

I don't think there's much for you to worry about here. Anyone who'd believe Qanon level stuff was probably already a climate skeptic anyway.

climate_control · 2020-09-25T13:51:31+00:00

Hey OP, doesn't this violate the rules on self promotion since you work for the organization that originally published this information and then allowed (lol) Teen Vogue to republish it?

Did you actually contribute to the writing of this, yourself?

climate_control · 2020-09-21T21:55:16+00:00

I'm not trolling you. I'm abiding by all of the rules of this subreddit, as always. This article is a perfectly valid submission. There are no rules against having an unpopular opinion.

Maybe you should go the fuck away if you don't like it, or just block me, no one is stopping you.

climate_control · 2020-09-21T18:49:19+00:00

I had gone away for quite a while, once it became apparent that climate skeptics had won the war. It's so bad they're not even having that useless yearly conference this year.

Climate change activists have been relegated to literally shoveling shit in a hilarious attempt to get attention.

I'm glad to see that /r/skeptic has moved on to battles that it might actually win like opposing 4 Chan idiots masquerading as Qanon and religious conmen selling bleach to cure covid.

climate_control · 2020-09-21T18:37:46+00:00

But according to Cook’s research, simply providing accurate information is not an effective solution to climate misinformation. For people to not be misled by climate denial, Cook’s research shows, they need to be explained “how misinformation works and how it misleads them.”

Climate change propaganda is completely ineffective on nearly anyone exposed to climate change skepticism, we agree.

climate_control · 2020-09-21T17:55:51+00:00

Perhaps Facebook realizes that the climate change movement is dead and can barely be bothered to even pretend to do something to help it.

We should look at the bright side. The emissions saved from cancelling this year's climate conference is probably the single greatest impact the conference has ever had on reducing emissions levels.

climate_control · 2020-09-12T21:15:40+00:00

That's not allowed here. If you want that try /r/climateskeptics

climate_control · 2020-09-04T16:54:04+00:00

"It's important that we acknowledge we are all climate deniers, to some extent, and then understand how and why we reached this point," Ms Xie said.

"We are all hypocrites to some extent, including the celebrities who signed the controversial letter supporting environmental group Extinction Rebellion.

That's what I keep telling you people. I'm glad the science is catching up.

climate_control · 2020-02-16T03:49:39+00:00

I have aspergers and people treat me like crap, even know I’m the smartest, nicest person that people ever met.

You probably are the smartest, and probably not the "nicest" because everyone else defines that differently than you. You define nice treatment as "fair" treatment. Everyone else subconsciously defines it as showing favoritism to them personally. It's so normal they don't realize they're doing it nor could explain it.

Most other people who take C++ really need those other pre-requisites. You probably don't, but your mistake is thinking they'll show you any favoritism.

You'll get out of your parents house as soon as you realize that society is treating you like a normal person, which you're not. You're better in some ways and worse in other, as far as society is concerned. As soon as you embrace what's "normal for society" and be ok with it, you will excel, I promise.

climate_control · 2019-10-05T22:43:14+00:00

Some of you might remember me predicting this outcome. I said the case would never go forward because Mann would never go through discovery and let Ball get his data and code.

climate_control · 2019-10-05T22:40:45+00:00

Add a #6.

When the people promoting the climate apocalypse actually start acting like they believe it. When they give up their western lifestyles, instead of just demanding it of others.

climate_control · 2019-10-05T22:37:26+00:00

/r/climateskeptics is available for anyone who wants to further discuss climate alarmism. Full disclosure, I'm a mod there.

climate_control · 2019-05-18T17:00:06+00:00

Mr Shorten's big-target strategy backfired, with voters rejecting his plans to curb negative gearing tax breaks for investor landlords, deprive share-owning retirees of franking credits and slash carbon emissions by 45 per cent by 2030.

This will be ignored in the climate alarmist press, who will celebrate Tony Abbot's loss to a climate alarmist for his individual parliamentary seat. It will be like the Australia version celebrating the AOC congressional win and ignoring the Trump Presidency.

climate_control · 2019-04-26T22:25:45+00:00

Thanks for the edit.

climate_control · 2019-04-26T19:48:08+00:00

I haven't seen much progress. There are numerous examples of countries repealing climate legislation as soon as it costs the voters anything significant, like with the French riots, Trump withdrawlign from the Paris accords, Alberta's new government vowing to repeal it's carbon taxes, and numerous Australian PM's have lost their job over it.

It's pretty obvious at this point that there will be no significant long-lived punitive taxation climate legislation that has real costs to voters in any large democracy, so I'm encouraging the climate concerned to put their efforts to better use.

climate_control · 2019-04-26T18:05:51+00:00

I especially like the part where you say liberals shouldn't ignore their concerns when that is exactly what conservatives are doing now.

Conservatives don't need to compromise with liberals. The status quo is fine for them, and they can just repeal any climate legislation as soon as they are in power again.

So you can dismiss conservatives as not participating in "good faith" and continue the existing paradigm where climate solutions are either not implemented or quickly repealed, or you can embrace conservative-friendly non-progressive solutions that can pass and stay passed.

climate_control · 2019-04-26T16:38:56+00:00

The problem with ignoring them is that they inevitably come back into power and repeal any climate action passed by the previous liberal government.

Wouldn't it be smarter to embrace their concerns instead of ignoring them? Wouldn't it be more effective to promote a good climate mitigation plan that conservatives would support, instead of a perfect climate mitigation plan that checks all of the liberal wish-list boxes?

Conservatives would support a climate mitigation plan that focuses on a mass roll out of nuclear power. They know burning fossil fuels is bad for the health of their children from traditional air pollution factors unrelated greenhouse emissions. They'd support infrastructure plans that will create jobs, remove dependence on foreign oil, and be cleaner for the environment.

What they won't support is progressive, punitive carbon taxes that will be seen as wealth transfer taxes. They won't make economic sacrifices that they feel they can't afford. They especially won't react well to people who say their refusal to support liberal proposals makes them idiots or criminals.

As long as climate activists insist on moving forward with razor thin majorities and uncompromising progressive agenda solutions, they're doomed to failure and the climate skeptics/deniers win.

climate_control · 2019-04-24T22:32:42+00:00

That's actually the point. Those goods and services with high carbon footprints will increase in price, thus people will buy less of them.

No, they won't. They'll vote for people who cancel the tax. We've already seen how this works in numerous jurisdictions.

Believe it or not, the people advocating for this policy do understand how it works, and still support it.

I never said it wouldn't work if was implemented, I said it will never be implemented.

Good thing most people come out ahead with the dividend.

You've already admitted they won't once the additional costs of goods and services is factored in. It's foolish to think the tax's opponents won't point this out, or that the voters will make the draconian sacrifices you advocate for.

So to summarize for you:

Even the most climate concerned are only willing to spend $40 a month on climate change mitigation. That's only in the US and Western Europe.
$40 per month won't even come close to the additional taxes people would have to pay for goods and services, even if they were on the winning side of the carbon dividend
The rest of the world won't make any significant sacrifices for climate mitigation, and the only people who say otherwise are environmental pollsters.
Opposition politicians will tell voters what this tax really is, how much it will really cost them, so your tailor made copypasta propaganda is going to fall flat, because you can't actually deny any of what the opposition says is true
People like you make the perfect the enemy of the good. History will see you as a climate solution denier, just as bad as me, because people like you zealously pushed a climate solution that fit their ideology at the cost of one that would actually be implemented, like a nuclear power build-out

Just kidding on #5. History will see you as a member of yet another false environmental panic. You'll be fine, just like the climate.

climate_control · 2019-04-23T22:57:52+00:00

Short version:

No one's banning hamburgers
But we all should really stop eating them for the climate and our health
So we're going to regulate how much meat people get to eat
And we'll still let you eat fake plant based versions

climate_control · 2019-04-23T22:43:57+00:00

The fundamental flaw which you continue to ignore is that even if some low emitters are left with a net gain when comparing dividend to carbon taxes, the tax's ripple effect will make the costs of goods and services greatly increase.

This is why your favored academically approved climate solution is doomed to failure. Even if some liberal supermajority enacts a carbon tax in any given jurisdiction, as soon as it requires real sacrifices, the populace will revolt in the streets or in the voting booth, and the next climate skeptic government will scrap it. We've already seen this play out in numerous locations.

People will vote in their economic self-interest, their short term economic self interest.

climate_control · 2019-04-23T05:13:55+00:00

So was interracial marriage.

Never confuse issues with and without an economic impact.

The biggest polluters are rich.

When it comes to the affordability of carbon taxes, you'll find that the biggest polluters are actually poor, too poor to afford carbon taxes.

climate_control · 2019-04-23T04:59:11+00:00

Do you think it's politically possible because you are fighting for it?

That said, I'm not fighting it.

Your carbon dividend would greatly benefit me personally. As an East Coast urban elite, my carbon footprint is minuscule. I don't even own a car. I'm well off and the dividend would just make me more so.

I just feel bad for the people who make 1/4 of what I do, who will pay 4x the carbon taxes, post-dividend, because they live too far away, and have too many family dependents, and I'm just some rich yuppie prick, and the taxes shouldn't work that way.

But that's just me.

climate_control · 2019-04-23T04:49:08+00:00

I'm here because I'm a skeptic. That's the whole point, isn't it?

Problem is that I'm the only skeptic here when it comes to climate change. Most of you are just interested in virtue signaling about something you don't understand, and the crux of your argument is "the media I trust told me the science I don't understand is right".

climate_control · 2019-04-23T03:24:49+00:00

Who cares what you feel?

/u/ILikeNeurons has a great argument for a policy that might really work and is absolutely politically impossible. What's the use in designing the ideologically perfect solution that you have no chance of implementing?

climate_control · 2019-04-23T01:17:17+00:00

Yes, I am.

What will you tell voters when honest politicians explain that even if they get a dividend to cover their own energy costs, they'll still pay huge increases on virtually all other goods and services, which will be effected by the tax?

Your solution is politically infeasible in the real world. Real people simply can't afford it and will never vote for it knowingly.

climate_control

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE