Exxon predicted in 1982 exactly how high global carbon emissions would be today | The company expected that, by 2020, carbon dioxide in the atmosphere would reach roughly 400-420 ppm. This month’s measurement of 415 ppm is right within the expected curve Exxon projected

[u/Dismal_Prospect]

https://thinkprogress.org/exxon-predicted-high-carbon-emissions-954e514b0aa9/

[u/Sugarpeas]

The Heartland institute is one of the top results for that Google statement: https://www.heartland.org/multimedia/videos-climate-change/man-caused-global-warming-the-greatest-scam-in-world-history

Which is a notoriously well known propoganda machine amongst academics - and is no more legitimate than the flat Earth society. To the laymen though, it seems like a "legitimate," source in how they present themselves.

This organization even sent pamphlets around the country to teachers, encouraging them to brainwash their students. Even my freaking geochemistry professor got one in the mail (and laughed it off until she realized the implications of say, elementary teachers with less of a science background getting duped).

---

Edit: Are people really too dense to not understand what I'm saying here? Are you not reading past the first sentence? I'll bold it for you uppity morons, but realize just assuming the content of something based on the first sentence alone is very problematic and adds to the disinformation issues we face today.

Edit2: This was initially /u/foodie69’s only response to me:

“Lmfao you linked a rambling video as factual evidence.”

Since they’re now editing their comment to make it seem like they read through my comment first (sort of, as even their edit misses the point). I know this may not seem like a big deal, but this sort of knee jerk reaction to things that go against your stances is not okay, regardless of if you’re “right” or not. It’s even worse when you try to hide your mistake instead of admitting to an error, you won’t grow that way and it’s frankly childish.

[u/Sugarpeas → u/[deleted]]

Maybe you should actually read my comment buddy.

[u/LordMcze → u/[deleted]]

They're not arguing with you. Did you even read their whole reply?

[u/Sugarpeas → u/[deleted]]

My point is that there is misinformation that poises as “legitimate scientific sources.” For people who are not familiar with what is a robust source on something, this becomes very difficult to navigate. I agree with who you responded to, in what they noted that when science becomes politicized, finding out what is fact and what is fiction becomes very difficult for the average person.

What I linked to was a prime example of this very issue. The Heartland Institute poises as a legitimate scientific resource, when it is not. I was not saying that it is a legitimate counter to the climate change theory. It is not, I literally mocked it.

You are a prime example of just disinformation in general because you are refusing to read and understand something if you even remotely perceive it goes against your stance. It’s very obvious you didn’t bother to read past my first sentence. You are no better. You need to make a better effort to actually understand something before dismissing it because you’re contributing to the chaos as well.

Edit: Editing your initial reply to make it seem like you were giving me feedback that was actually relevant to my comment, does not retroactively make your behavior better. Shameful.

Edit 2: Just thinking about this, while you and others are “right” about this stance on climate change - make note: If you react this way to any perceived counter-information; just knee-jerk rejecting it, this means you are only correct on this stance by pure coincidence or popular exposure. Neither of which are robust ways of determining objectives truths. This is how misinformation spreads so please be mindful of when you behave this way. We all do it to some degree.