there has been similar evidence of corruption by oil companies, etc, but it hasn't made as much of a splash. Because "this must be fake news" or some other conspiracy.
and so you are reduced to returning to basic facts like "as green house gases even real?" and "if you increase the presence of a green house gas 33% in the atmosphere 33%, will it have any effect?" and so on.
there has been similar evidence of corruption by oil companies, etc, but it hasn't made as much of a splash. Because "this must be fake news" or some other conspiracy.
and so you are reduced to returning to basic facts like "as green house gases even real?" and "if you increase the presence of a green house gas 33% in the atmosphere 33%, will it have any effect?" and so on.
The problem is for every pro-study I can find, there is a con-study to match it. Another problem is that the predicted events do not seem to be happening:
https://www.globalresearch.ca/global-cooling-is-here/10783
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2015/05/19/updated-nasa-data-polar-ice-not-receding-after-all/#f24685e28921
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_who_disagree_with_the_scientific_consensus_on_global_warming
It all reminds me of the 'cigarettes causes cancer' debate. Everytime one scientist released a study saying yes, another one released a study saying no. It was not until that whistleblower infiltrated the Tobacco Companies, and released that damning evidence, the question was laid to rest.