Alternatively, we're going by the data we have. And that data, from every source, says the world is getting warming. We can debate the cause all day... But I'd like to know why some people in the so-called truth movement seem to think protecting the planet we live is a bad thing. You're so dead set on believing that everything you're told is a lie, you're alright with letting the world burn because some of the powers that be say global warming is bad... All while ignoring the powers that don't give a single care about the future.
I don't think there is anything wrong with being concerned about the environment. Climate change or not, in the here and now, it is obvious that we are affected by pollution. Larger cities are victims to increased respiratory conditions and there is present evidence that we are harming the environment and ourselves without trying to predict the long-term consequences of climate change.
In my opinion, this is the kind of thing that makes discussions like this frustrating. We can debate climate change till midnight, but no one has a crystal ball to determine who is right or wrong and we can all cite sources that will support our opinion either way. We should be more focused on what we can do now and I think that is what makes this discussion appear engineered because it seems to require a mediator at some point, and who else to fill the role of mediator than someone with elite connections who will assume this role of authority.
Personally, it would be much more productive to discuss the ways we can remove pollution so that we don't all end up with asthma and having to sleep with c-pap machines. That is a present reality that could affect many people who live in larger cities. Years ago, I began researching alternative fuels that would be complementary to the vehicles that we use so that we don't end up with huge landfills because of this. There was a European research institute that was researching hydrocarbon fuel because in theory, you could replicate the chemical structure of gasoline so that it could be sustainable and used in the same cars we use.
I can't remember the name of this place, but it was researching a different source that didn't create the same emissions either. It was very interesting. I briefly tried to find it and found that hydrogen fuel cells are becoming popular and even found an article regarding research that would convert carbon dioxide into a hydrocarbon fuel that could be used in the same cars we presently have that could be sustainable and remove the carbon dioxide in question.
""Our process also has an important advantage over battery or gaseous-hydrogen powered vehicle technologies as many of the hydrocarbon products from our reaction are exactly what we use in cars, trucks and planes, so there would be no need to change the current fuel distribution system," said Frederick MacDonnell, UTA interim chair of chemistry and biochemistry and co-principal investigator of the project."
https://newatlas.com/co2-water-hydrocarbon-fuel-uta/41976/
So there is no question that we need to be concerned about the environment, but this concern needs to be centered on solutions to the present effects of pollution and not centered on predicting the future, which could potentially require mediation, which could be exactly what TPTB want in order to justify assuming a greater role of authority over the world.