And it's this: does anybody know if any active scientists have changed their mind about the whole hypothesis from doubters to believers? You can find stories of scientists who originally were advocates, like Judith Curry, but then after more research changed their mind and are now labeled "deniers". Most seem to be people who were well established and safe from being fired, like Curry, who had tenure, and has said that she would not have dared to speak up if she hadn't, if she had been just in the beginning stages of her career, because saying what she is now saying would have made her unemployable in the current era.
But the main question is pretty much this: how many scientists, especially well respected ones, have gone from advocates to "deniers" after studying the hypothesis longer, compared to how many have maybe gone from "denier" to advocate?
Because all you can easily find online are all in the first group. And if there are more of those, or especially if there are none of the latter type, that certainly would say something about the whole thing.
And could be used as a point in arguments with the staunch believers you have to deal with in your life.
Actually, the climate is changing... always has, always will. The HOAX part is the "WHY" it is happening. Hint: It ain't cars and cow farts.
Of course, but one needs some ammunition when trying to convince believers that the "human made" and "catastrophe" etc parts of it are a hoax, of course just you saying so will do nothing because they "believe the experts".
But if there really are more bona fide experts who have stopped believing after they have personally studied the matter, vs ones who maybe have changed their minds in the other direction, that should at least help.
Well there's this: The models used to forecast and predict global warming have been peer reviewed and were determined to be completely flawed and additionally had the very founding assumptions exposed as wrong. Since these reviews, the original authors have withdrawn their so-called "proving" models and admitted they were not correct.
The entire hoax was launched from these flawed scientists' modelling. Yet, even though these launching pads have been removed... the hoax remains afloat and full speed ahead.
I don't think anyone really understands our universe's, solar system and earth evolution and thus these "Causes" are just not known nor discovered. What we do know however is that these same changes have occurred more than once on planet earth. We have this proof via the fossil records and ice core digs. Furthermore, in these past eras we didn't have factories, farting cows and cars. This leaves us with a big question mark as to what causes the change... but it ain't humans.
Some of the newer theories involve the rotation of our galaxy. None of our sciences (including modern physics) includes the forces generated by a rotating galaxy nor do they include our solar systems' spiraled movement around the galaxy as it moves. This movement generates energy (or a force). Yet, it is ignored in all scientific calculations. We haven't even defined what gravity is yet!
This then causes rational thinkers to suspect the entire narrative around climate change is just another made-up hoax. What we do know is this narrative causes more control over human beings and drains our global finances.
I think you're asking the wrong question. No legitimate climate researchers believe that there is anthropomorphic climate change, or that there is any significant "warming" or "sea level rise" going on. This is all about the gravy train, and corporate and government grants and other funding. (This is also true with other types of research, like covid and fusion research, for example.) Published papers are peer-reviewed by researchers who have a vested interest in pushing the narrative (and therefore ensuring continued funding for all similar studies), so only pro-climate change papers get published, with those dissenting being not only refused recognition, but also black-balled such that they are forced out of the agenda-driven inner circle.
These "researchers" are directly involved in fraudulently changing climate data, so they know full-well what the original stats say. Also, they are behind the known decommissioning of rural weather reporting stations, which provide the most accurate reporting...in favor of the urban stations influenced by concrete and asphalt.
Now, the people who might actually believe in the propaganda are mostly students who have been indoctrinated in universities, and are unable to think for themselves. They find their way into Dept. of Interior positions, for example, and do their part in guiding funding for projects that support their misguided beliefs.
I happen to know, however, that within the Dept. of Interior, there is a growing voice of individuals rejecting the "sea level rise" narrative and replacing it with the scientifically-proven land subsidence model.
True too, but again, that will not work with the believers. But as there are scientists who in the beginning were in that gravy train, but later spoke out against it - and again, they seem to mostly be ones who at that point were secure enough that they no longer had anything they could lose by doing so - having a list should work.
And if you can't find any, or at least not many, old established scientists who would have gone in the other direction - and my guess is that if there are they did that due to threats to their income or careers - well... but if there are those cases I'd of course like to know before using that in an argument.
This is not about what is true or what isn't or why most scientists are onboard, we all know those, I am looking for points I could use when talking with the "sheep", and it occurred to me that comparing those numbers should work at least to some extent, if only by throwing even a little bit doubt in the mind of a blind believer.
Because you can never persuade anybody by just one, or a few, arguments, or just telling them. If you can do it at all you need to find questions that might make the other person think, and throw at least a little bit doubt in their mind, even if it is only in a subconscious level, then they might end up doing the work themselves (and will probably then think they also reached the conclusion all by themselves, but who cares).
Questions they can't answer usually supposedly work best.
So "why are there more scientists who have gone from advocates to "deniers" than there are ones who have gone from "deniers" to advocates after studying the matter themselves?" might be a good one, but I'd need to be able to confirm it first.
This is an old article, I know. There is a much more recent list of deniers, but I can't seem to locate it at the moment. https://www.businessinsider.com/the-ten-most-important-climate-change-skeptics-2009-7?op=1
Thanks.
I was a believer when i was younger, but now i'm a denier too, but i'm not a published scientist either
Some helpful links:
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2022/10/five-climate-change-smoking-guns-reasons-manmade-climate-change-lie/
https://co2coalition.org/ (hmm this one is down - no it just takes time for it to load)
https://cei.org/blog/wrong-again-50-years-of-failed-eco-pocalyptic-predictions/
I have successfully used information from the above links to foolify (my word) any ''but climate change" propagandist, or individual indoctrinated by the propaganda.
Truth does need legitimate voices so this is a valid concern, but still, try to stay out of the weeds.
One argument ends it all.
Just as covid had one important number, 99.95% recovery rate, this same number applies to climate hoax claims, 99.95% of gasses in our atmosphere are those other than carbon dioxide.
The con is easy to show.
Humans are humans. If one has to choose between getting hired to do something he got into debt for and used years to learn, vs ending up working in Starbucks or something, most will swallow their doubts and just keep their mouths shut and do what seems to be wanted of them by their prospective employers.
I have known some people with university careers, and the pressures to not to rock the boat, in any way, seem to be pretty harsh, so I don't personally really blame any of the lower tier types, the main guilt is with the top level politicians, bureaucrats, and the few career scientists who have used the thing for their own benefits, and to gain power, just because they figured how they could use it, even if they probably could have had decent enough careers and lives without resorting to hoaxing.
And currently the whole structure for doing science is toxic. The money comes mostly only from people who will want what they can use for their benefit, and will actively crush what might be damaging to their careers. You have people who have been scaring the public for years about climate change - or whose bosses are those people - deciding who gets the funds for studying climate, and you damn well know where those funds will go.
This bloody well has to change if we want to get more serious science again.
Quick question: why does this matter?
I'm looking for ammunition when it comes to arguing with people who believe in the thing. Isn't at least part of the whole point here trying to wake up those who aren't yet awake? Even if it is just a few people you know personally you think you just might be able to get to?
I question how much of this oxymoronic "climate change" is attributed to weather manipulation vs natural phenomena like increased solar activity etc.