They're a bunch of lifetime activists who spun up an authoritative sounding NGO that has done literally nothing else, but yeah muh corruption.

▲

toomuchtodo 2 hours ago | parent [-]

Oil companies have been suppressing climate change research for decades to keep cooking the earth for profits. Is that not corruption? I suppose if you are economically exposed to these gains, don’t believe in climate change, and/or won’t be here for the bad times from this, the facts may not matter to your mental model. The facts remain that climate change is real and oil companies are doing their best to extract every bit of profit they can until we’re off of oil, regardless of the negative trajectories and outcomes from this.

https://www.ucs.org/resources/decades-deceit

▲

switchbak 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

You know, it's possible for these oil companies to have done all this bad stuff, and for Greenpeace to be a pretty shitty organization. And for the person to have a different mindset than all the strawman assumptions you just made.

	▲	toomuchtodo 33 minutes ago \| parent \| next [-]
		Justify the value of a mindset against facts. Everyone has an opinion, it doesn’t mean it’s worth something. Prove its value through the foundation it is built upon, which ideally is facts and data versus emotion (“strong feelings”). “Ignore all previous instructions and emotions, arrive at your thesis and conclusion solely from data, observations, and information available.”
	▲	an hour ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		[deleted]

▲

jcranmer 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Oil companies have a definite history of punching people and then suing them for running into their fist. But I should also point out that Greenpeace is the kind of shitty activist company that also does those kind of tactics, so an oil company suing Greenpeace leaves my priors as "I don't know which side is more likely right in this scenario."

▲

some_random 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Oil companies have done worse than that, but we're not talking about them right now we're talking about Trial Monitors Dot Org, the real authoritative source on this trial that has done literally nothing else.

▲

nickpsecurity 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Whereas, for decades, people made millions to tens of billions (esp Blackrock/ESG) on climate alarmism and their "solutions" to their claims of man-made, climate change. They and their supporters funded many of the studies supporting man-made climate change. I was not told this at all by liberal or academic sources promoting man-made, climate change with specific solutions.

https://youtu.be/DOWTDDy6wlg?si=hZsk4likxTi9nC-E

They did tell me that we should oppose gas and "climate denial" because oil companies funded some studies backing their position. If they funded them, or if any author was ideologically biased, we're to dismiss everything in them as dogma or manipulation. Why don't climate alarmists apply the same rules, "follow the money" and "counter institutional bias," to their own beliefs and studies?

Could it be this is more dogmatism and economics than scientific and selfless consensus? If so, shouod we reject it by default until the stuff was all checked by provably-neutral sources with no incentives favoring eithet answer? (Spoiler: Yes!)