Eduk wrote:No the point is simple to grasp.
How do you know the world isn't flat. All your objections are answered on flat earth sites.
How do you know one conspiracy theory is false and another is true. I am simply asking for your methodology and for you to apply the methodology evenly.
For example I would point to the scientific consensus that the world is a sphere as being very highly supportive of the claim.
I would also talk about conspiracy size and how likely a conspiracy can be maintained past a certain number of people. For example I know of zero world wide conspiracy involving many thousands of people independent from each other.
I could also look at the credentials of the scientist making the claims. How many published papers do they have. How many citations do those papers have.
Finally it's not unreasonable to look at motive. Of course greed is a big motive. But there is a lot more money in fossil fuels and nuclear than renewables.
Finally politics comes into play. Of course a politician will say anything to get voted for. Which is why republicans deny science and democrats don't. Again though what conclusion can you draw from that other than don't trust politicians.
Republicans deny science. How ridiculous. These are political point-scoring statements. Washington is corrupt on both sides to the point there isn't really sides.
How can I evaluate that a flat Earth site's claim is BS? Well, I see how their assumptions are constructed. For example, they calculate the perceived angles of sunlight rays (perspective) shows that the sun is quite small and located close to Earth. They do not, in this calculation, seem to even consider that Earth has quite a dense moist atmosphere and so that the sun's rays are really emanating from the outer surface of the atmosphere where the sunlight actually strikes, and from there rays branch out.
A lot more fossil fuels, business wise? Sure. But they are not left out of the loop ever. Renewables cannot match. It's really just a facade and a battle between the two is also really only a facade. The actual battle is really one about sovereignty - about who become controllers of nations. Shutting pipelines, say, from Canada to the US suits the fossil business interests of the UAE and Saudi Arabia. So the so called renewable business heads can both please a Saudi King's interest, receiving appropriate kickbacks, while stripping the working and middle classes of the US bare and destroying local industry, with carbon tax demands, which then better suits a non-local internationally located business.
As for this 'climate science consensus', the construction of this consensus itself is fraudulent. There are dominant voices, dominant because they are allowed the large publicly funded platforms. It's just the usual stuff.