If climate change were a cut and dry issue, there wouldn't be so many differing opinions from scientists and all the studies they've conducted. The major report used during the Paris Climate Accord discussions was debunked due to a lack of data integrity. I don't think it was an accident and I definitely don't like when people spin data to avoid the truth. I don't like when information is left out intentionally to propagate an ideology.
An example of this is in how the mainstream media stayed away from reporting conditions in the Artic this winter. They have in the past and of course they've shown video footage of icecaps melting, but they didn't this time. Why? Common sense tells me that it was due to the Artic Ocean being at some of its highest ice levels. Isn't it amazing how they don't cover a story unless it fits their narrative?
Think about this scenario. If you take a glass of water and fill it up half way and then add ice, the water rises as the ice fills space (displacement), where the water was. In this example, think of ice like a polar cap that global warming followers say are melting. When the ice in your cup melts, it doesn't raise the water level, all it does is fill up space in the glass that was once occupied by the ice.
What I just shared is exactly how some of these climate change activists spin information. If I only mentioned the above example and didn't also mention ocean temperatures ticking up which leads to the expansion of water or when ice on land masses in places like the Antarctic melt and run into the ocean, that water can rise, then that would be totally misleading. But as with global warming in general, what's the primary cause and what can we realistically do about it?
Are there variations of the stories regarding water levels rising, sure, but we all know there are places in this world that were already projected to be under water right now. Some studies, some self-serving I might add, are stating our east coast will be negatively impacted in 80 years. Maybe they're right, but I don't have a lot of faith in their research based on some of the tactics that some of them have used in the past to push their agendas.
Keep in mind, some of the threats regarding our planet, are from people saying we're pretty much going to be dead in twelve to twenty years. A sane person knows this isn't true. Why are their predictions so aggressive in their timelines? Well, people like AOC rapidly increased donations to her coffer from the green industry as it opened up the door for companies in the industry to make a lot of money. Nothing unusual, just politics in action.
These activists also blame carbon dioxide (greenhouse gases), for global warming. I can't say for sure but what I do know is that our temperatures aren't much different now than during the Roman Empire or during the significant droughts on record around 2500 BC in Egypt. The reason I bring this up is that no one was driving a car back then. CO2 wasn't a factor in their temperatures. This is yet another little something green activists leave out of their conversations. I'm not saying there isn't a problem and I'm not saying CO2 doesn't have an impact, I'm just saying don't lie about it through using false data and not providing the whole story like so many of them are doing now.
As I've said many times, it's almost always about influence, power, and money. Fear of global warming has created a business segment worth trillions of dollars around the world. Lobbying groups help get Democratic candidates elected so they can force regulations that will make investors in these industries rich. Remember Solyndra? So prices go up for consumers, including the poor, while Democrats help make the rich even richer. Very interesting. The thing too many people don't realize is that it doesn't matter which political party it is, they don't make money off of poor people. They use them as leverage sometimes, but at the end of the day, campaign money comes from people who have money.