^I don't think you are the enemy Darkmatters and I appreciate your participation in this thread. I think it does show how good the fossil fuel based energy companies are at muddying the waters and keeping the public on the sidelines and doubting whether we should switch away from their product.

Does anyone really trust those energy companies more than scientists? Simply compare the motives of the groups that are funding the two sides: energy companies wanting to protect their huge profits versus the idea that 97% of scientists are somehow sell-outs because they want more funding from Universities who are trying to promote a false case for some reason? Huge numbers of educational institutions are actually behind a conspiracy? What is their motive? *Won't you be angry when you realize how the energy companies are trying to manipulate you?

Lobbyist Richard Berman was secretly recorded giving a presentation to energy executives:

-(He was talking about) how the public doesn't have "the time or the brain to understand initiatives."

-On changing public understanding of policies whether it is a lie or not: "That's common knowledge. And that comes from people hearing something enough times from enough different places, people repeating it to each other, that you reach a point where you have solidified your position.

If we can solidify the position on drilling, fracking, etc. We have achieved something the other side cannot overcome because it's very tough to break common knowledge.

It's very tough to break first opinions. You know the guy that gets to make the first opinion, the first impression, has a huge advantage because people don't want to admit they were wrong the first time."

(from DailyKos and a detailed article in the New York Times)

Quote Originally Posted by Darkmatters View Post
Sure, there's plenty of evidence for some parts of it - and I don't deny any of them.
Thank you

Quote Originally Posted by snoop View Post
Same here, what you shouldn't be concerned with is convincing people that we are putting out too much CO2, but that if we continue using the same energy resources we will likely run out fairly soon.
Sure, this angle could help and it leads to the same answer: We need to stop burning through so much fossil fuel...it will run out and it is polluting our environment causing some significant irreversible damage. The argument that it will run out may not be as strong of an argument to those looking out for the children and grandchildren.

Quote Originally Posted by cmind View Post
I'm old enough (and have a long enough memory) to remember very distinctly the climate scientists a decade ago saying that there would be massive, catastrophic, climate changes by now (2014). Yet a decade has passed, the climate is the same, the north pole is still home to Santa, the oceans haven't turned red, etc., and we somehow still have a "chance" to prevent the catastrophe, as long as we give certain people lots of money. And don't forget to vote Democrat.
Please provide evidence that the majority of peer reviewed science papers thought we only had 10 years before catastrophic changes would occur. Until then, this is just one person's recollection of what they heard back then and somehow I have a hard time imagining that you got a large sample of opinions back then or certainly anywhere near the over 12,000 papers that were surveyed to find that 97% figure.

By the way, I am just an ordinary guy (who also loves lucid dreaming). I am just tired of seeing lies perpetuated by big corporations and special interests who don't give a darn about the little guy. I am especially irked by the way I have seen those lies trick people who I truly care about.