Weststigers Wasteland

[Tiger05]

Here's what else your friend had to say. I fed it this thread and asked it to analyse. You're now trapped, because either

A. ChatGPT is not always accurate, meaning I was correct in my initial post, and everything you've ranted about since is misguided.
Or
B. ChatGPT is always correct, and you really are how it suggest you are.

Checkmate.

P.S. I'm happy to provide the prompts I used, should you want to "fact check" me...

Looking forward to your schoolyard insults in rebuttal x

You may be the most stupid ignorant f**kwit in the entire universe and not only that you never ever learn.

Let's do it again my bitch:-

1. I posted about climate change
2. You came on here trying to talk yourself up as understanding AI. You stated I can't use it as a fact checker.
3. I asked for evidence on the posts I created on climate change
4. You refuse to provide evidence on multiple occasions. I call you stupid, a bitch, a piece of shit and the dumbest f**k ever. I've highlighted what a fool you are. I haven't made you into a fool though. You did that all by yourself.
5. You start using ChatGPT to justify your feelings.
6. ChatGPT has not once justified your feelings because to do that you need to provide evidence my posts on climate change were wrong.

--> No one gives a f**k about your feelings bitch. You are a stupid, ignorant, bitch who has made a fool of themselves and it so but hurt it isn't funny.

--> Let's do the loop again - Provide evidence (on climate change)or you are a bitch.

--> Lastly you are such a f**kwit. We are talking about climate change and you keep bringing up how ChatGPT isn't 100% accurate but you can't provide a single fault in my posts despite crying like such a bitch so so many times. You then use ChatGPT like a dumb f**k hypocrite to try and argue your feelings have been hurt.

--> You may be the biggest bitch of all time.

 

[TooheysNew]

So B. With a side dose of childish insults to further demonstrate. Got it. x

The part you can't get is that it has nothing to do with those specific posts. It's your methodology, not your results, that demonstrate your lack of understanding.

Pretty clear which of us has hurt feelings haha.

 

[Tiger05]

So B. With a side dose of childish insults to further demonstrate. Got it. x

The part you can't get is that it has nothing to do with those specific posts. It's your methodology, not your results, that demonstrate your lack of understanding.

Pretty clear which of us has hurt feelings haha.

f**k me you are a loser. No evidence again. You post so much as well. I'm just getting another post ready from my buddy to counter more climate change misinformation and in the meantime you post this pathetic comeback again.

You must be sitting on your computer all day crying and whining about how some day someone will realize that you aren't a loser. That day ain't coming buddy. You have f**ked your whole life up trying to big note yourself and you are a stupid ignorant dumb f**k.

f**k you are stupid. It's so funny.

I've put you on ignore because at this point the debate is over. You are a bitch.

If any sane person reads anything the bitch posts that actually makes sense let me know. I don't think it will happen. Bitches be bitches.

 

[Tiger05]

It's all just a money making scam.

Conceptualizing the Evidence for Climate Change​

Imagine climate science as a massive, peer-reviewed mountain of evidence. It spans multiple disciplines and independent lines of inquiry that all converge on the same conclusion: the Earth is warming due to human-caused greenhouse gas emissions.


Here’s how the scale of that evidence compares to a cherry-picked photo tweet:

---

A Tweet With Two Photos:​

• What it is: An anecdote. A snapshot — literally — of one place at two moments.
• What it shows: Often very little. Local conditions vary naturally. Weather, tides, vegetation, construction, and angle all change photos — not always climate.
• Scientific value: Close to zero unless part of a long-term, controlled dataset.
• Logical fallacy: This is anecdotal reasoning and cherry-picking. Like showing one healthy smoker and claiming cigarettes don’t cause cancer.

---

The Actual Climate Science:​

Here’s what it’s built on:

1. Physics (since the 1850s):
   • CO₂’s heat-trapping properties were demonstrated in lab experiments by John Tyndall in the 1850s.
   • Svante Arrhenius calculated the warming effect of CO₂ in 1896.
2. Direct Measurements (1950s–today):
   • Keeling Curve: CO₂ levels rising steadily since 1958 at Mauna Loa.
   • Global surface temperatures up ~1.2°C since 1880, confirmed by NASA, NOAA, Hadley Centre, etc.
3. Satellite & Remote Sensing (since the 1970s):
   • Shows less heat escaping into space at the wavelengths CO₂ absorbs — confirming its warming role.
   • Ocean heat content is rising — a major fingerprint of greenhouse warming.
4. Global Trends, not local weather:
   • Over 90% of glaciers worldwide are retreating.
   • Arctic sea ice is declining by 13% per decade.
   • Sea level has risen ~20 cm in the past century, now accelerating.
5. Thousands of peer-reviewed studies:
   • IPCC reports are written by hundreds of scientists, synthesizing thousands of studies.
   • 99%+ consensus among publishing climate scientists.

---

The Analogy: A House vs. a Postcard​

• Climate science is like a house built on thousands of bricks — physics, measurements, global trends, modeling, paleoclimate, etc.
• A tweet like that is a postcard someone took of the front yard, claiming the house doesn’t exist because “I can’t see it from here.”

---

Optional Response for You to Use​

One photo taken a century apart doesn’t debunk 150+ years of physics, 70+ years of CO₂ monitoring, 40+ years of satellite data, and thousands of peer-reviewed studies.
That’s like taking a selfie and claiming gravity isn’t real because your hair’s not floating.

 

[TooheysNew]

Like I've said before, I agree on climate change. Ita not about the facts of that post. It's about your methodology. Your inability to grasp that simple concept, and instead resort to insults is telling.

Your frustration tears must have clouded you on that one.

Imagine that. A 60 year old man still carrying on like a kid on an internet forum.

 

[Tiger05]

It's all just a money making scam.

Hey mate - you actually have the right idea here. It's just hilarious because although you have the right idea you've done on it the wrong side. So you've called black white. It's f**ken hilarious but that is what using tweets and being involved in culture war BS does to your brain.

If you need help in getting out of the cult let me know. I'm here for you buddy.

The Claim:​

“Climate change is a money-making operation.”


This is often said to imply:

• Scientists are inventing a crisis to get grants.
• Renewable energy is a scam.
• Governments are using it for taxes or control.

But this flips reality on its head.

---

Who Actually Profits from Climate Misinformation?​

1. Fossil Fuel Companies​

• $5.9 trillion in annual subsidies (IMF, 2020) — this includes tax breaks, underpriced pollution, and other supports.
• The major oil companies (ExxonMobil, Chevron, BP, Shell) have made hundreds of billions in profit while privately acknowledging climate risk for decades.
• Internal documents from Exxon (1970s–80s) show they knew fossil fuels were warming the planet, but they chose to fund denial campaigns instead.

They funded think tanks, media campaigns, and lobbyists to delay regulation — not to seek truth, but to protect profits.

---

2. Ideologically-Aligned Media & Political Actors​

• Figures like Craig Kelly often align with outlets or parties that receive funding or support from industry-linked donors.
• Denial or delayism is packaged for culture war clicks, ad revenue, or political power.
• A tweet that goes viral mocking climate change earns attention and outrage — which translates to money, votes, or media coverage.

---

3. “Anti-Green” Grifters and Influencers​

• A growing number of commentators now make money selling climate skepticism — through books, podcasts, speaking fees, or YouTube revenue.
• Their followers often believe they are “speaking truth to power” — but in reality, they’re echoing industry talking points from decades ago.

---

Why Is Misinformation Produced?​

Because uncertainty is profitable.

• Fossil fuel interests learned from Big Tobacco that casting doubt is enough to delay action.
• “We don't need to disprove the science — just confuse the public.”
• As long as the public believes it’s a debate, pollution continues and profits roll in.

---

But What About Money in Climate Science?​

Sure, money exists in climate science and clean energy too — but here's the difference:

Sector	Profit is based on...	Incentive to distort reality?
Fossil Fuels	Selling more product (coal, oil, gas)	Yes — regulation hurts profits
Science	Grants for accurate research, peer review	No — lies get caught
Renewables	Building scalable clean tech	Low — works better if transparent

 

[Tiger05]

Just for the record would I be replying to text from a human being or an angry version of Chat GPT ?

Just checking back if you are still a cooker or if you've been able to answer my questions.

@Tigerm, @macnaz

If any of you cookers can answer these questions for me it'd be great. You might actually learn something and have your brains mature from immature easily manipulated fools to being a little bit more educated and learning how to think.

Here are the questions again:-

1. Explain to me how the greenhouse effect works ?
2. Explain to me what the consensus science on climate change states ?
3. Explain to me what is wrong with the consensus science ?
4. Provide evidence why the consensus science is wrong ?

Just to be clear I just want a simple high level synopsis. I'm not an expert. I am not a climate scientist. I am self educated on the topic but my education is based on a really high level understanding of the consensus science. There is stuff that I have no idea about however that stuff is definitely not relevant to this discussion. I actually thought these discussions were over a long time ago but due to the amount of misinformation in society coupled with gullible people we are still having this discussion.

I didn't use ChatGPT to do this and I could answer these questions easily within 5-10 minutes with no help from my smart buddy.

I'll add if you can't answer these questions you are so so so so arrogant. You don't even understand the science and you get your feelings validated from things like Twitter. It's f**ken hilarious. It's also some of the most childish shit ever.

Give it a shot if you have the balls.

 

[Tiger05]

I think in reality when you are talking to cookers you have to understand that are easily manipulated people.

I think it's probably a good idea to introduce them to the idea of the right wing grifter. These guys are making money out of the cookers inability to use their brain in mature fashions.

I've broken it down in a bit more detail for you here.

1. Individual Grifters / Influencers​

Here are examples of climate-denial or anti-science figures and how they generate income:

YouTube & Social Media Monetization​

• Some denialist channels earn $100,000+ per year through ads, SuperChats, affiliate links, and Patreon.
• Example: YouTube demonetized some channels spreading climate misinformation — because they were profiting from falsehoods that violated policies.

Books & Speaking Tours​

• Figures like Alex Epstein (“The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels”) get $15,000–$25,000 per talk from industry groups and conservative think tanks.
• Many right-wing authors get bulk book buys (e.g., political action groups buying thousands of copies to push bestsellers).

Substack, Podcasts, and Patreon​

• Anti-climate content creators may earn $5,000–$50,000/month on Substack or Patreon, depending on their follower base.
• Example: Some vaccine and climate skeptics on Substack have 10,000+ paid subscribers at $5–10/month — that’s $50,000–$100,000/month.

---

2. Think Tanks and Lobby Groups​

These organizations form the institutional backbone of the denial ecosystem:

Heartland Institute​

• A key U.S. climate denial group — received millions in funding from fossil fuel interests (including Koch Industries).
• Promotes climate misinformation and provides talking points and speakers.
• 2012 leak showed their climate denial budget at $6.4 million/year.

Competitive Enterprise Institute, Cato Institute, Heritage Foundation​

• Each of these receives millions in annual donations, some of which are earmarked for climate disinformation efforts.
• Dark money: Many donations come through donor-advised funds like DonorsTrust, masking fossil fuel ties.

---

3. Australia-Specific Example: Craig Kelly​

• Former MP turned climate denial figure aligned with Clive Palmer’s United Australia Party, which spent ~$100 million AUD on political advertising in 2022 — much of it promoting anti-science rhetoric.
• Craig now makes media appearances, books, paid partnerships — while amplifying the same narratives used by fossil fuel lobbyists globally.

---

Bottom Line​

Source	Estimated Revenue
Individual influencers	$100K–$1M+ per year (if popular)
Think tanks	$1M–$10M+ annually
Political parties/media	Tens to hundreds of millions per election cycle

 

[Tiger05]

I think it's a good idea to focus on the bigger picture in the context of what is happening. I came on this thread to discuss the energy transition. This is fascinating to me. It's well past the point of discussing climate change being real. If you are doing that now there is something wrong with you. You need to look in the mirror and work on yourself.

Here are some points that I've realized though:-

Key Points on Climate Change Denial & Human Nature​

1. There’s a difference between bad actors and misled people.
   Many who spread denial are manipulated — not malicious. The real harm comes from a small number of actors with power, money, and motive.
2. Climate change denialism is well-funded — not grassroots.
   Fossil fuel companies and aligned groups have spent decades casting doubt, not to find truth, but to protect profits. It's a business model, not a debate.
3. Most people believe climate change is real — and support action.
   • A 2024 global survey across 130+ countries (UNDP) found over 70% of people believe climate change is a global emergency.
   • In Australia, CSIRO’s 2023 Climate Sentiment Survey showed 83% agree the climate is changing, and 76% think it's caused mainly by humans.
   • Among young people (under 30), support for action is even higher — often above 80–90% globally.
     The loudest voices online often don’t reflect the broader population — especially when coordinated misinformation distorts public discourse.
4. Misinformation works by creating confusion, not alternative facts.
   You don’t have to disprove climate science to delay action. Just making people doubt — even a little — can be enough to stall policy and protect profits. This playbook mirrors what Big Tobacco and Big Asbestos did before.

 

[WA Tiger]

I watched that Grenfell appartment building fire doco on Netflix.. Human cost is of little concern within politics and big business.. it’s collateral damage .. you can see some logic when a move against big business can result in lost votes a esp with an unstable $$ world
That’s where China has the advantage.. Xi Jin ping has a plan and and he sticks to it with lots of $$ to execute that plan ..votes are not part of the equation

 

[Nealo 12]

Just checking back if you are still a cooker or if you've been able to answer my questions.

@Tigerm, @macnaz

If any of you cookers can answer these questions for me it'd be great. You might actually learn something and have your brains mature from immature easily manipulated fools to being a little bit more educated and learning how to think.

Here are the questions again:-

1. Explain to me how the greenhouse effect works ?
2. Explain to me what the consensus science on climate change states ?
3. Explain to me what is wrong with the consensus science ?
4. Provide evidence why the consensus science is wrong ?

Just to be clear I just want a simple high level synopsis. I'm not an expert. I am not a climate scientist. I am self educated on the topic but my education is based on a really high level understanding of the consensus science. There is stuff that I have no idea about however that stuff is definitely not relevant to this discussion. I actually thought these discussions were over a long time ago but due to the amount of misinformation in society coupled with gullible people we are still having this discussion.

I didn't use ChatGPT to do this and I could answer these questions easily within 5-10 minutes with no help from my smart buddy.

I'll add if you can't answer these questions you are so so so so arrogant. You don't even understand the science and you get your feelings validated from things like Twitter. It's f**ken hilarious. It's also some of the most childish shit ever.

Give it a shot if you have the balls.

All I asked if you considered solar weather events which for what ever reason are not addressed in chat GPT so hopefully you can now see a flaw in using it . FYI I am not a cooker and use the solar data info every day in my chosen profession .

Regards