“Climate science” was always a feedback loop. They pumped out “models” inputting data they knew wasn’t valid or like at NOAA just flat out fabricated, they then got politicians to fund it because they could hire cronies in a new permanent committee (like our current climate czar John Kerry), they then shove the models at the media who only reports the worst case scenario of the already biased models. Meanwhile government incentivizes companies to meet quotas (kickbacks), threatens companies they don’t like with carbon taxes, and profit massively off the forced scarcity of oil which they all hold stocks in. We then see the expansion of “climate science” where to even suggest that climate change isn’t man made gets you blacklisted because government wants yes men so they can keep funneling easy money with no accountability because any changes won’t be measured for decades.

Ignoring all the obvious talk about climate "change" itself, this is also almost a perfect example of deceptive framing.

Because 2014 is literally the time Twitter started becoming a semi-major site to begin with. Prior to that, it had barely 100k tweets per day total across every single topic. So using a pure numerical Y axis is a complete piece of propaganda because it loses that context.

Not only that, but its not based on the discussion in the broadest terms possible to measure the conversation. Only on specific terms they decided are strongly associated with a specific strawman of their opponents, which given how language evolves those terms probably weren't even in common usage prior.

They even openly admit to excluding a specific event for some reason, probably because it would either show the number dropping recently from some 2021 peak or even just having a natural up curve from 2019 until now.

This isn't even getting into the idea of bots, shills, and obvious plants. Something that we know has been a thing forever and would only come into place once the opposition started the conversation in the first place.

"...containing terms associated with strong forms of climate skepticism"

What, precisely, does this fucking mean? If I say things like "stop 100% of immigration," CNN says that's dangerous fascist rhetoric. How extremely variable is such a concept as 'associated with climate skepticism' when I know with absolute certainty that they would cast that net as widely as possible to drum up as much fear as possible?

These are the same people that start to push some freak commie idea then act like everyone reacting to their push of that idea is coming out of the woodwork for no reason.

The "cholestoral is bad studies", in my opinion, are the dress rehearsal for climate hysteria and now vaccine "studies". They promoted hysterical religious denunciation of opposing opinions using "science" as their dogma.

The fact that the general population is so easily taken in (see American Dietary Guidelines) is an indictment on our education system and ability of nerfarious organisations to manipulate public behaviour through lies and deception.

Climate skeptic? These terms are used to make it seem like people are against broader basic ideas like climate, not this climate change mumbo jumbo.

Post source faggot.

Sceptic?

That's not a word, Falkenberg.