I might be double-posting here, pardon me if I am. But my previous account appears to be shadowbanned, so I will paste what I said here. I will delete this if the other post starts showing up. I said:
You have figured it out. Look up the World Wildlife Foundation, its founders, the "debt-for-nature scheme", the militias, and the "1001 Club", and you will see just how sinister the origin of the modern green movement is. Everyone involved was an insanely corrupt aristocrat with oil or lumber properties, and most of them were open depopulation advocates and all linked to the Rockefeller family. They promote this because 1. it stifles the development of the proletariat and 2. it stifles competitors by prohibiting use of huge amounts of resources under the guise of "environmental protection". The Amazon is one of the #1 examples of this today, but they do it all over the world. They also use it to tear down critical infrastructure--the largest power plant in Poland was torn down a few years ago on behalf of the environmental lobby. I can go into more detail if you'd like, but I feel as though you will be able to find plenty on your own as well.
Also, Al Gore's famous climate movie not only contains several outrageous lies (that the glaciers will melt by 2020, that the sea level will rise 100 feet--ten times the highest predictions made by scientists today--etc.). Al Gore was a Rockefeller-trained "degrowth" advocate and his "Global Marshall Plan" to solve climate change included reducing the world population as a bullet point. Now he lives in a luxury beach house that, by his own prediction, should have already flooded.
Anyways, let's talk about the science. You mentioned how the science changes every decade or so, and its true (just look up the IPPC's Stephen Schneider, who admitted "each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest"). You might be surprised to learn that "climatology" is a field which is both relatively new (it only started being taken seriously around the 1930s-1950s), and almost completely dominated by a handful of institutions whose members are all linked to one another through the IPCC. It's worth noting that the IPCC allows a board of UN representatives to freely edit anything the IPCC researchers write, without needing permission from the researchers. Even Schneider complained about this.
I recommend this book a lot, but Costella's *The Climagate Emails* uses leaked IPCC emails to show how the IPCC (and really, all climatology) is basically a gang of 10 to 15 WWF-funded activists who openly talk about corrupting peer review, manipulating data, and blacklisting anybody who questions them. It shows how the "100% consensus" among climatologists is in fact a handful of people agreeing on a single thing ("climate change is manmade") while agreeing on literally *nothing* else ("how much does CO2 effect the temperature?", etc.). The IPCC is so unreliable that Dr. Richard Lindzen, one of their top climatologists, ended up quitting and began opposing the manmade climate change theory. And this is anecdotal, but I've had a conversation with an IPCC administrator who told me the level of open manipulation and plotting he saw convinced him that manmade climate change was a hoax. Other "deniers" include the guy that founded the Weather Channel, some EPA chiefs, etc. (I'm writing this all from the top of my head so I can't remember the names).
So, let's discuss what "climatology" actually is. Here's the big secret: since climatology did not really develop until the 20th century, we don't actually have a way to study historical temperatures. Instead, scientists have various roundabout and fairly unreliable methods, i.e. tree rings, ice pockets, written historical accounts, etc., and they attempt to use these to put together a picture of how the climate has developed over thousands of years. There's some merit to it, but it's definitely not the "hard science" it's made out to be. The methods are shaky and two scientists can get wildly different results from the same materials. Hence why back then, there were so many climatologists warning about "global cooling" and the surely inevitable new ice age.
But in the 1990s, after the IPCC was created, climatology changed. Basically, they started just using computers.
It goes like this: they program a computer simulation and then input modern climate data. Then they run the simulation backwards, and it "predicts" how the climate was in the past based on the information fed to it. When the computer responds the way they programmed it, i.e. with the temperature going up from CO2, they go: "Woah, look, the computer confirmed CO2 emissions affect the temperature! Manmade climate change is real!"
I'm not even joking. Here is a real quote from Professor Chris Folland of the Hadley Center, who iirc worked for the IPCC:
> "The data doesn’t matter. We’re not basing our recommendations on the data. We’re basing them on the climate models."
This is why detractors like Dr. Tim Ball, Professor of Geography at the University of Winnipeg, say:
> "How did the climatologists determine that an increase in atmospheric CO2 causes an increase in global temperature? They assumed it was the case, then confirmed it by increasing CO2 levels in their computer climate models and seeing the temperature went up. Science must overlook the fact that they wrote the computer code that told the computer to increase temperature with a CO2 increase. Why isn’t this central to all debate about anthropogenic global warming?"
Btw, the first computer model they used, the Manabe-Wetherald, predicted a 3.6F increase if CO2 doubled; but at the current rate, if CO2 hit double the levels from back then, the temperature should only see a total increase of 1.8F--and that's assuming there's a correlation at all.
There are plenty more examples (like how CO2 has steadily increased since the 1900s, while temperature has gone up and down and seems to show no correlation), and I could go on and on about this, but I think you get my point. There If you have questions, I can answer them. I also have many more interesting quotes I can provide you. In the meantime, look up the "hockey stick graph controversy" for a particularly blatant instance of IPCC data manipulation which lies at the root of all modern climate activism, since it is here that the "unprecedented warming" claim began. The book I linked talks about it, but I can explain it in more detail if you need me to. What is crazy is that saying this stuff is literally banned from some forums, and it evokes a visceral reaction among many people. It's very taboo to question it. But just ask any one of these people who gets so offended, "What climate study did you read that convinced you of climate change?" [You'll find they haven't researched the subject one bit at all, not even remotely.](https://youtu.be/7ztpGiBhAlE?t=20) Everything they know about it comes from TV. [Most of them can't even tell you what CO2 is measured in, what the current CO2/ppm is, what the CO2/ppm should be, etc.](https://youtu.be/7ztpGiBhAlE?t=89)
/u/vivamorales I am tagging you here so you see this too, it is food for thought. Maybe I made a few errors here and there, but I think it is important to know the "other side".