As a child, I believed it when it was called "global warming". In just one presentation as a teen, the terminology was updated to "Climate Change" because "it's more accurate as to what's happening globally".
Already knew from reading about weather and geology that the Earth has been constantly changing climate-wise. The illusion was shattered.
(Pollution is still a problem though. Toxicity in the environment does damage to humans)
How much of the climate change agenda is funded by “generous donations” from companies responsible for massive chemical and material pollution of the environment? Or consider this: the weather apps on all of our smart phones have been updated to scaremonger about climate change nonstop, but the toxic rare earth minerals going into all of our phones are far more destructive to both the environment and ourselves (child laborers included). How much does Nestle donate to climate change awareness as their plastics fill the oceans?
Pollution is still a problem though. Toxicity in the environment does damage to humans
so is using non renewable energy sources tbh. any source of energy that simply cannot run out in the forseeable future is objectively better than finite ones. energy sources that dont get your country held by the balls by foreign suppliers get bonus points too.
trouble is, most modern day "renewables" are crap by this definition. solar is barely energy positive if you count production costs. so its technically not a "solar" panel. its a "coal plant in china" panel that only provides power when you don't really need it.
As a child, I believed it when it was called "global warming". In just one presentation as a teen, the terminology was updated to "Climate Change" because "it's more accurate as to what's happening globally".
Already knew from reading about weather and geology that the Earth has been constantly changing climate-wise. The illusion was shattered.
(Pollution is still a problem though. Toxicity in the environment does damage to humans)
Hell, when I was a child it was the tail end of 'experts' trying to hype an impending ice age.
How much of the climate change agenda is funded by “generous donations” from companies responsible for massive chemical and material pollution of the environment? Or consider this: the weather apps on all of our smart phones have been updated to scaremonger about climate change nonstop, but the toxic rare earth minerals going into all of our phones are far more destructive to both the environment and ourselves (child laborers included). How much does Nestle donate to climate change awareness as their plastics fill the oceans?
I've come to the same conclusion that a lot of climate change nonsense is pushed as a distraction.
so is using non renewable energy sources tbh. any source of energy that simply cannot run out in the forseeable future is objectively better than finite ones. energy sources that dont get your country held by the balls by foreign suppliers get bonus points too.
trouble is, most modern day "renewables" are crap by this definition. solar is barely energy positive if you count production costs. so its technically not a "solar" panel. its a "coal plant in china" panel that only provides power when you don't really need it.