What would organizations gain from creating a climate panic?

[OpenClose]

I'm curious because I want to hear some perspectives. I commonly hear people say that big organizations are working together to manipulate climate data to strengthen the case of climate change.

What would you feel these motivations would be?

The main ones I could think of would be scientific organizations getting increased funding, left-wing groups getting some more voters, and alternative energy sector providers seeing more demand.

Personally, I think there would be innumerable accolades towards whoever was able to definitively disprove it. A Nobel Prize-in-waiting. Funding galore from giants around the world whose business is potentially hurt by climate action.

So from my perspective, there is far more incentive to come up with reduced or nullified correlations between human activity and climate, and many who set out to prove it wrong ultimately end up contributing to the pool who prove it right.

So I want to hear more counterarguments to get an understanding of what people think. What would groups like NASA, the NOAA, political groups, etc all gain from cooperative manipulation of data and cover up if contrary data?

[NamerOfStars]

Urgency and credibility. It's easy (and tempting) to think "my side is entirely correct, and everyone on it is acting logically", but much of what's being done is useless politicking. A big part of the reason for the massive spike in US gas prices was due to the decision to completely stop oil imports from Russia, while making NO provisions to compensate for the shortfall. Think of all the ripple effects it will have, however: the US isn't like, say, London, where anyone can hop a subway anywhere; our public transit infrastructure SUCKS in most of the country, and is rarely better than "decent" in its best parts. A blow to people's mobility is bad for business in the best of times, but many places are still reeling from the damage inflicted by Covid shutdowns and restrictions; business that weathered that but lose customers could still go under.

Now, what if it wasn't a resource we produce more of from a state apparently run by a madman, but a resource we produce little to none of from the biggest human rights abuser on the planet? End the polysillicon imports from China, and the solar industry dies on the vine. End the Rare Earth imports from China, and the wind power industry dies before the ink is dried on the paper, unless you want to build windmills out of wood. Ramp up the sense of urgency, and you can build a panic- so no one questions why you're still using models that say all of Miami will be under ten feet of water by 1997. Obviously those models were incorrect; that doesn't mean the whole idea is false, but sticking to a disproven model damages your credibility. Lobbyists don't care; they've got people running scared.

Picture the whole of plausible anthropogenic climate change as a yardstick (yes, what constitutes "plausible" will much disagreement; work with me a little). Global warming is maybe ten inches of that. The greenhouse effect is maybe four inches, and carbon dioxide about half an inch. You have much more to worry about from, say, sulfur hexaflouride, the most powerful greenhouse gas known to man. And what's the most common source of sulfur hexaflouride emissions? Solar cell manufacture- or it would be, if we were kicking out enough of them to have them be the majority of our power production.

That's the value of urgency. The value of credibility can be explained in two simple words: nuclear power. If it weren't for France, and to a lesser extent China (and to lesser extent, Sweden), nuclear power would've been completely stagnant since the 60's. The environmentalist lobby's fearmongering over the safest form of power generation humanity has yet devised, in terms of environmental impact, has people STILL gunshy about it, but as more and more come to realize that, the movement is more and more damaged in the public eye. Ram changes through now, and simple inertia will keep them from becoming undone once the truth gets out. When people discover you have strong ties to groups and organizations that have mislead and actively harmed you, they'll turn.

The simple truth is that there AIN'T no such thing as a free lunch, and energy production is no exception.

[OpenClose]

Good arguments here. Especially with regards to Nuclear. By advocating against Nuclear, environmentalists groups did a lot to hurt quite possibly the best option we have.

Germany is the most ironic one. By closing their reactors, they INCREASED their dependence on fossil fuels, and got most of them from Russia. Europe's dependence on Russian oil is probably the only reason Russia still exists in their current form, and not broken up or remodeled to a more modern governing structure.

I will push back in Solar though. SF6 is a super powerful greenhouse gas indeed, but its weight keeps it's effects quite low to the ground and local. Water vapor is also way more strong than CO2, but CO2 is more like the fuse that lights the humidity bomb.

The other thing to push back on Solar is that we could have been mass producing panels here in the US, but our lack of interest and desire to outsource pretty much handed this industry to China. We had it. It was literally invented here. But we slacked on an upcoming trend. That is, it isn't so much because of China's action, but our own denial. Even if solar is a farce, we need to be able to pick up on market trends and bring them into our own borders.

I agree with most of your points. Though I don't really see who benefits from it except places like China and Russia, and I don't think the world is listening to them enough for them to be the motivation.

[OpenClose]

Oh right, the idea of using urgency to create false credibility and consensus. That would be the main advantage.

[Lliam]

There are unimaginably wealthy and powerful globalists who control the entire banking system, mainstream media, very influential organizations like the UN, WEF, WHO, Council on Foreign Relations, most governments and security agencies. They include the most powerful industrialists. They meet regularly to plan the future of the world without any democratic input of lesser humans. Their goal is to monopolize the Earth's resources and gain technocraic control of all humans under a totalitarian Great Reset/New World Order/One World Government.

Covid measures were/are an experiment in consolidating power and gaining full control over human activity through propaganda and undemocratic emergency powers. But climate change measures - the Green New Deal and carbon trading - have been part of their plan for decades. Climate change measures would include control of all land, water and air. The activities of average humans would be increasingly limited in the name of protecting the environment. People will get to eat fake meat and food produced in factories. They'll be forced to drive electric cars that are far more damaging to the environment than conventional cars and are more expensive to purchase. This will further limit people's liberty to move about. Food and fuel prices will increase. But elites won't suffer. And giant corporations will make shit tons of money.

Linked to all this is the next step, which is elimination of cash and a transformation to digital currency where every single transaction can be monitored. At that point, we'll be nothing but factor farm animals whose only purpose is to produce for the global masters.

[laurieluvsit]

It's called follow the money.

Al Gore, who wants us all on bicycles, has become wealthy beyond most ordinary peoples imaginations with climate fear porn. He has mansions, limousines and jets that create the pollution of a small city.

Obama, Pelosi and dozens of others have purchased beach front mansions that they were saying, prior to buying them, are soon to be underwater.

Yes, this one has been too easy for them and the marxist globalists have been laughing all the way to the Central Bank!

“It’s easier to fool people than to convince them that they’ve been fooled” ~Mark Twain

[Gwenhwyfar]

Destabilization of the coal, oil and aerosol deodorant industries

[OpenClose]

What would they gain from this destabilization?

[Gwenhwyfar]

A business advantage?

[Lionman95]

The biggest thing organizations could gain from creating a climate panic is unquestioned power. We live in a time and age where people that either call themselves experts or are experts in a certain field are invited or introduced into politics allowing them to make political decisions through the back door.
The problem that could arise is that political and environmental groups could change the system in creating a dictatorship or oligarchy arguing that because they have the expertise on our things are going they should a veto on EVERY political decision.
That way not the people that are elected get to make the decisions but environmental like Greenpeace or Exction Rebellion.
These groups have a maybe valid vision but they are neither trained nor do they have the knowledge of leading a country but they would change the society to their ideas without allowing a counter opinion.
The problem is that they could make themselves unquestionable and giving themselves a higher authority claiming that when ever you question their decisions you produce "fake news".
It´s a method that could be shortened as T-I-N-A: There Is No Alternative. Whenever a politician or an activist says that sentence he/she makes democracy or a republic obselete because it´s the fundamental idea of a democracy or a republic that there isn´t just one way of politics.

[demonics]

Simply put, one can wield climate change policy like a weapon, or make sht loads of money by directly putting a thumb on the scale. https://www.bnnbloomberg.ca/pelosi-husband-s-tech-stock-spotlights-law-on-lawmaker-trades-1.1627493

[Phoenix-gb]

They wouldn't, simple as that. Like you have said, the consensus is such that the only studies shown to be using cherry picked data or flawed analysis are those that deny the impact of man on climate change. The fact that there are still so many people out there that think there is some giant conspiracy frankly scares me.

[exitseven]

A lot of companies are going to get rich on the global warming hoax. Wind turbine and solar energy companies make more money if there are government subsidies to encourage people to buy their products. Scientists get lucrative government grants so it is advantageous to them if they find that globel warming is real.

[jahaims]

Distractions and more laws to gain control of the population. Stopping non renewables at a rate faster than they can be replaced by renewable drive up prices on everything. Most people aren't going to sit around and dissect the governments actions when they are worried about where their next meal is coming from.

[OpenClose]

I could definitely see this from politicians.

From scientists themselves, it's a little harder. It would have to be a pretty big and unified cover up to prevent whistleblowers from popping up everywhere. Especially if they had corporations on their side, who are more powerful than governments.

But ultimately what does and doesn't get funded is often on the desks of both CEOs and politicians alike. So there is some room for this one. I'm not about to advocate against people being skeptical of those in power.

I think this is why we need to teach research and scientific methods better. That's way people can get their conclusions from data and not from political talking points.

[jahaims]

Look into leaded gasoline and how that played out.

[DCooper]

Aside from making money off subsidies for renewable energies, they fall into 2 groups. 1) communists, mostly in government positions or government subsidized positions, using global warming as a fig leaf while act on the same ideological beliefs that drive everything else they do, and 2) those who have a lot to lose with bad PR or government crackdowns, financing the watermelons like the protection money businesses used to pay the mafia.

[Avicenna]

reallocation of research grants, subsidies and government spending toward preferred organizations that employ their friends and family and/or they're invested in

[FunkyMonkee]

Money, control, fear, obedience.

[joeldalton]

The motivation is control. Always is.

[fireforeffect]

Control.