Pokémon Sword And Shield's Pokédex Contains A Dire Warning About Climate Change

Maybe Corsola’s haunted, tortured visage will be the necessary catalyst that finally spurs world leaders into taking adequate action against complete climate breakdown.

If that face isn’t a dire warning of things to come, I don’t know what is.

This is about to suck

Can’t wait to see how many people commenting here who think climate change is a hoax...

EDIT: but hopefully no insults from either side and also hoping for a lot more civility and amicability instead.

@Severian Ahaha same I was thinking Bring on the comments section

While it’s not exactly going to inspire much change, it’s a nice touch.

@Severian Are people really that stupid? Or maybe they just live in a happy fairy world where death doesn't exist and everyone gets along. Hmmmm.

@Jayofmaya @TheDavyStar

I am active in climate action, but some of the things I hear on another forum that I am on are absurd, which I will spare everyone here from being repeated.

@Selene Sounds like hubris to me. The very notion that humans can harm the world, but not irreparably throw it out of balance is a foolish one. The only people who gain from that ideology are corporations that only care about finite gain and power.

Climate change is just as real as the nukes every powerful country hoards in their basement. The world is headed towards one ultimatum at this point, yet no one wants to accept it.

@Selene So humans can pollute the water and change it's chemical balance causing harm, but they can't pollute the air and change it's chemical balance causing harm?

@Jayofmaya - With all due respect, I don't think anyone naturally think it's non-existent. It's likely more that they feel it isn't as much of a threat many seem to be panicking over (and with some representatives going on tangents about we're ending tomorrow, I can see why). This in turn is likely making a counter-culture that pushes those who fear the world is ending in a matter of years with people who think it will never happen. And with lobbyists, things get even more murky.

Grant it, there is much nuance to this than what I mention here, cause let's be honest anyone who breaks it down here won't have it read.

I think Climate Change, and Global Warming are both real. I also believe there is many factors than "HUMANS BAD MAKE MUD BALL SAD!" here has been recorded events of the Earth drastically shifting clime, and what our impact has naturally been hasn't been fully understood. Of course there is much we can do to better impact our local areas, but all of us would have to be on the same boat. But honestly the arguments from both sides are losing the plot, and I do fear that will be more likely our downfall for the things we can control.

I don’t want to set the world on fire.

Turns out it wasn't the climate, he just misses his friends in the national Dex.

Ooohhhhh....

It's nice to have a not so negatively charged Pokémon related story. Even if the content itself is quite dire 🥺

@Paraka I agree with a lot of what you’re saying there. Here in Scotland, we have one of the best potential in the world for renewable energy sources. However, a lot of our industry is built on fossil fuels, such as the North Sea oil industry. There are plenty reasons why people wouldn’t ‘believe’ in climate change for reasons such as being fearful of their job. I guess it’s just wishful thinking but we’ll need to find a balance between people’s livelihood and the planet’s future.

Of course there's political propaganda in this game... disappointing.

@Severian It is. Sad to hear that you believe the lies. It's all a hoax and that stupid Paris Climate garbage was just a scam to steal money and give it to countries like China and India, who do the most damage to the environment. I wish you people would educate yourselves about this issue, but that's too much to ask when you're all too busy whining, bullying, and harassing Pokémon fans.

I'm also not going to take advice from ignorant liberals who claim to care about the environment, but throw all their garbage onto the street after every protest or march they have. You people have NO credibility on this issue.

When is this site going to stop being political?

Imma continue dumping chlorine and bleach into rivers and lakes

@KingKRoolMain Don’t forget the medical waste!!

@Aquamine-Amarine If by "political propaganda" you mean cold, hard facts, then you are 100% correct!

Climate change is real. It is currently causing mild winters and droughts in North Dakota (where I live). Not enough snow during our used to be harsh winter=bad harvests from our farms.(yes, having more pleasant weather is actually a bad thing for my people.)In the past few years Texas gets hit by floods, California and Canada are on far more fire than usual, and the Eastern part of the country is repeatedly hit by winter storms they're not used to. Eventually the too low parts of the Netherlands, Louisiana, Florida, and New York are going to be claimed by the rising sea levels and there'll be a few million displaced people. Also Venice is finally sinking beyond their ability to counterflood, but that was probably going to happen at a later date without climate change.

@nessisonett - Absolutely. Even if we humor what we're doing doesn't effect climate change, who here WOULDN'T want cleaner, more efficient solutions? I don't think there is anyone who enjoys smoggy air.

So then we start looking at why people who are against it. And it's not just some top elites who build their entire empire on it, it's also those who would likely lose their jobs. Jobs many are likely invested in for many many years. Imagine being that person, where that job kept the family, or their livelihood in general, even existent.

So yeah, the move needs finesse, and I am all for it. But people upending entire industries is absolutely disastrous for everyone in every aspect. Even though, yes, many fossil fuels centers are actually impressively clean (seriously look them up), we can still move to something more renewable. The problems are many to answer the move, cause even our greener energy solutions have shown to not be as efficient, simply by nature of being newer.

@RainbowGazelle The cold hard fact is that humans have little to no effect on the environment and even if we dropped all carbon emissions right now, not much would change.

The climate was changing waaaaaay before we even discovered fossil fuels, CO2 isn't even the biggest greenhouse issue. It's water vapor.

@Aquamine-Amarine

Climate change is not political, it’s a scientific consensus, and most “scientists” against it are paid shills by oil companies. I’ve got a stack of research that debunks this which anyone can see in a web search. It’s only “political” because contemporary politicians, interest groups, and firms are using that with dark money (look it up; it’s shaping the world today and is both in a book and documentary) to advocate their self-interests.

The best democracy money can buy!

On top of that, I have worked in multiple countries addressing and assessing climate change, so no, it’s not about “believing” but both first-hand experiences and objective data across multiple places!

@Jayofmaya There's also a growing number of people who think the Earth is flat. In 2019.

Never underestimate the potential of human stupidity.

I mean... is it so surprising? Not only is Galar Weezing a mobile air purifier, even Gen7 had it's own takes on this with Alolan Grimer and Muk being the way they are from having taken to feeding on solid trash because environmental regulations had caused industries to stop dumping the kind of toxic sludge "kanto" grimer/muk usually fed on, forcing them to adapt in Alola.

Plus one of the notable elements of Gen6 kalos was a multimodal power plant all about all kind of renewable energies.

So it's something that really kinda was already there since some time now

The coal mine town of gen4 is pretty far away already.

I love the depth of Pokémon design lore. Galar had the best selection of new Pokémon I have seen in a while

@Galenmereth Rather than planning for the fallout, would it not be better to prevent it from happening at all?

That's like buying dentures that you'll eventually need instead of just brushing your teeth.

@Kalmaro Yes, the Earth has gone through many cycles, but we've sped up the current one.

@Severian Yeah, I need no stories. It's as simple as fossil fuels and the loss our natural habitat (spoiler alert; forest fires worldwide right now). Of course there are other contributing factors, but really we need to stop letting companies doing whatever they want to lobby their way out of building greener models and engine size limitations set by UN standards that we have all asked for. Also, the government can't be bothered to enforce emission regulations properly, either.

@RainbowGazelle There is no evidence that we have had any significant impact on the climate changing. Nor is there any evidence that we could effect it now by stopping CO2 emissions.

@Paraka Do you think we're going to last for a lot longer at this rate? I mean look at the death rates for thinga like cancer right now. Whether this has been influenced by the heavier amount of co2 we're intaking is not entirely researched, but what would be the harm of heavier research into alternate fuels? Only thr economy of certain big car and energy companies that have obviously been influencing political standards of this issue for years now. When I mentioned this to my friend he actually said his brother had recently researched and written a paper for the daily mail about the issue, if you want to read it's certainly interesting.

@Ralizah Oh don't worry, I have met a couple. One of them was also a crack head, so go figure.

@RainbowGazelle,

It would be far more trustworthy if the climate change group was led by scientists rather than politicians, as with climate change it's very hard to separate the science from the politics in the first place, and one thing we can all agree on is not to trust politicians.

@Kalmaro,

Very true, and we treat these thing like they are so simple, we want to save the world, how are we going to do it?, we will concentrate on climate change and ignore all the other problems facing the world, so we can all feel good about trying to solve global warming.

@Jayofmaya

Enforcing it is difficult from all levels, because most people are concerned with short-term personal benefits rather than long-term group benefits, and in this day and age, if it means pissing off someone else who disagrees with you, then the more frequent action is to maximize someone's distress even if it's a small loss.

Now for example, coal, which is globally set to decrease in use, is still tied to identity with many groups in parts of the US and Australia, and so to them, climate change doesn't mean flooding in Venice or forest fires in California and the arctic ablaze--instead, it means "your job and your way of life is wrong, but oh, by the way, my liberal urban startup for green technology and fuel is making money with angel investors" which in their eyes means giving up their way of life and identity to serve urban elites who look down on them for living in the rural parts.

So a lot of the argument sadly has to do with people seeing only a fraction of the issue, which is what they feel relates to them and identity rather than the issue of community.

In gaming terms: Activision-Blizzard and Electronic Arts make decisions based on shareholders and marketing research teams, profit being the bottom line rather than seeing what the social impact is of a bad decision--Diablo Eternal comes to mind, where they didn't consider how gamers would feel. Unless you're someone like the late Satoru Iwata who is a programmer, a businessman, and a gamer, it's hard to see on all levels and find that happy medium. Both the issues of information and how it's communicated (often uncivilly) are what impact people's opinions.

@Galenmereth

Good show, and great link. Glad to see someone else citing good references.

Too little, too late. This minor cryptic message is literally nothing. At the current rate that the US is dumping toxicity on our precious planet, it is only a matter of months before the entire planet is unlivable. ALL life will cease, thanks to capitalism. We had one chance, the Green New Deal, and the majority white criminal politicians shut it down because a brown femayle was the spokesbeing. Congratulations, we all will die thanks to racism and bigotry, 100% because of Trump

@Galenmereth you are exactly right. Climate change is real. Just as global warming and cooling have been part of the Earth's history for eons and epocs. It is also a cycle that takes hundreds to tens of thousands of years to change. The question that is in debate is how much humans have on it. If one cares to actually research the science fact, actual studies and go back to grade school chemistry to learn, vs. Consume what MSM and globalist government want to force-feed us, you will discover that there is a lot of science that countermands the mainstream ideal that humans are affecting climate change.

Just a couple of tidbits of science fact for those who care to know. CO2 is a greenhouse gas being blamed for glomal warming. It makes up .04% of the Earth's atmosphere. Humans contribute .01% Of CO2... .01% of the atmosphere (400 parts per million) cannot control the thermostat of the entire globe while water vapor (another greenhouse gas) makes up 60% of the atmosphere.

The Earth's temperature has risen and fallen in general in 2 periods of recent history. 1920 to 1940 and 1990 to present. The change in temp has been .8 degrees F. 1920 rise could not have been attributed to man contributed CO2.

Geological core studies have shown that CO2 levels were previously in the THOUSANDS of parts per million when The Earth was lush, green and full of life. The net change in CO2 between 1950s and now has been 50... 350 to 400 ppm. If CO2 was the catalyst we are being told. The dinosaurs and flora would have lived in a fireball...

CO2... is plant food. It is needed by plants to make whay we need to breathe. We are literally villifying a gas that is essential to our survival. Make no mistake... Climate change is real. But humans have had very little impact on it. It has been happening for millions upon millions of years just fine without us. If we want to fight pollution (particulates, garbage, things that make life worse for us to live here) I'm on board. But pollution is NOT the same as CO2 causing global warming. Totally different concept, cause and effects. Let's not all readily co sume what those with political agendas want to feed us.

Wow lying to people what cursola and cursola pokedex entries here is the entry for each game. You need leave your political crap out.
Corsola:
Sword: It will regrow any branches that break off its head. People keep particularly beautiful Corsola branches as charms to promote safe childbirth.
Shield:These Pokémon live in warm seas. In prehistoric times, many lived in the oceans around the Galar region as well.

Cursola:
Sword: Its shell is overflowing with its heightened otherworldly energy. The ectoplasm serves as protection for this Pokémon’s core spirit
Shield:Be cautious of the ectoplasmic body surrounding its soul. You’ll become stiff as stone if you touch it.

After the decades of work that it took to finally get Lapras off of the endangered species list, now we have to deal with this.

@-Juice- @Jayofmaya @TheDavyStar @Severian notice how you all set the tone here, essentially forcing people to agree. while this is a nintendo news site and one shouldn’t come here looking for professional level discourse your actions shut down all discourse on it. the last time a large group forced their opinions onto others it didn’t work out well (see catholicism). you all should welcome counter points and not shut down the conversation by preemptively calling people names. or keep your negative attitude and those who don’t believe never will.

@Jayofmaya - This reads as if you believe I am anti-research on the matter. Which cannot be further from the truth. Even if we had evidence (we don't) about climate change being safe, that research would STILL be of great use. So regardless who is right in the argument, there is still clear examples as to why we definitely need to shift to cleaner and more efficient methods.

And just as your cancer comment, we also have had leaps in tech and understanding of how to track cancer and diagnosis it earlier before it is already too late, so the rise of diagnosis is also help by understanding it more. Which, to me, is just more reason to do the research.

My only concern with it is money fund research, and that money can easily come from corrupt places.

@tekknik In case you didn't notice, I never insulted anyone--someone insulted me by saying "how sad you believe the lies" and I only cited sources.

Can we just keep this politics free please? I want to talk about video games, not some crazy world climate debate. I play video games to step out of reality for a sec, not be reminded about it.

@Galenmereth - I dunno if I am much help, but I have been a pretty big tree dude since I was a child. Been planting at least 1 tree a year, or allowing some sapling to grow in my backyard (got a natural aviary back there cause my own trees) and taking sapling elsewhere to plant them.

May not be much, but it's my motion. Still drive by my college apartment and see the two lavenders I planted grow pretty well to this day.

Oh good lord. I really need to buy stock in some global change companies. This trillion dollar hoax based on fear mongering is making billionaires out of "believers".

Incoming internet defenders to attack me for have a differing point of view in 5... 4... 3... 2...

@tekknik At that point, there was no one to take the label, so I wasn't directly addressing anyone. Secondly, it's not really a matter of opinion, but fact.

@Severian Ahh, don't worry I understand the ego and ID. I like to psycho-analyse, but if I'm honest didn't really take into account the most rural of areas still mining. I have actually seen that kind of persona represented in media, once or twice. Another problem with crowd mentality, stubbornness and lack of education, I'm afraid. I guess that kind of thing takes time to change, but would definitely be more affective with the new generations in such areas.

I definitely agree climate change is an issue, but @Kalmaro had a point in saying there's not much we can do to stop it at this point, and at this point it's definitely water vapor that's more prevalent like he said. The carbon emissions are just adding fuel to the fire.

@Kalmaro Yep, being a planet with over %70 water on it's surface kinda screws us over.

@Big-Pepsi @Jayofmaya

The key to making people become more open besides eliminating interest groups lobbying or paid trolls spreading disinformation is to actually talk with each other, not at or over each other. One of the problems with some of the more vocal amongst my fellow climate change activists is sadly this condescending and dismissive approach which in turn makes the critics defensive and equally combative. The former expects the latter to be ignorant and brainwashed, the latter assumes the same, and never talk with each other as people. So that’s critical in getting people to care.

@PharoneTheGnome

Not an attack from me, just an honest and civil question, which you are free to say that you don’t feel comfortable answering if others might scrutinize you for your reasoning.

What makes you believe it’s a hoax? How do you draw your conclusions and what are your sources?

My personal responses for why I believe it: my professional work, my travel experience, and data from different research groups both private and government funded.

I ask not in hopes of “convincing and converting” you, but because I’m interested in how others think and reason.

@Galenmereth You made an excellent point. One I wanted to make as well but I think I was pushing my luck with the length of my rant . How do we know that this man made climate change idea is a hoax designed by the Left to gain public support to vote them into a globalist government? Because IF it were true that our emissions were destroying our environment at the level we are being "scared" onto thinking (see the absolute hysteria of Greta Thurnburg) the solution is a very, very simple, inexpensive and MOST green solution of them all.... PLANT MORE TREES! Trees are CO2 scrubbers!

Why is this proof that this narrative is a hoax? Because the solution requires absolutely no governmental oversight. It requires no governmental management at all. It requires no investment of billions (trillions) of dollars into "green" companies peddling their incredibly expensive and inefficient technologies (in terms of dollars and expense to the environment to produce them) who are in the back pocket of globalist. If this were a real issue, we would be talking about planting more trees, not relying on governments and their interests in solving the problem at the cost of billions of dollars and our own personal liberties.

And BTW, studies and experiments have shown and proven that an infusion of CO2 in marine animals habitats actually PROMOTES growth. For the same reasons why plants need it. GenZ needs to learn to follow the TRUE scientific method and question everything until no reasonable questions remain. That is the difference between science and propaganda.

@AcesHigh,

The worst thing about it is that with climate change projections, which is based on pretty unreliable data in the first place, is that the errors around the projections increase the further you project, so if you look in ten years time for instance the errors accumulate so you will not be able to measure any positive or negative effects of anything you do now, so it's very tough to find a solution even if the more radical claims are true.

@HobbitGamer
I just want to start a flame in your heart.

@PorllM Pretty sure you can't dump plastic and other garbage into the sky. That's primarily the pollution I meant. CO2 is plant food. Man-made climate change is a conspiracy.

@Jayofmaya so just keep right on being aggressive. that’ll work

@Severian while you didn’t call anybody names specifically your statement is still considered a microaggression. key thing here being would it piss someone off from the other side while they read it, and if that promotes proper discourse (it doesn’t)

@tekknik Which statement? I personally do not see any INTENDED microaggression there because I've made it clear that I work in the field and I've run into people who have made poor arguments, and if you'll read my above comments here (ctr+f or cmd+f on mac), you will see I make every effort to ensure that there is civil communication because that's one of my criticisms: poor communication kills!

Uh oh!
What if the haters start blaming Pokémon Sword & Shield for Global Warming?! They could start spouting nonsense such as "the production of this game is causing factories to burn more fuel and increase global warming in our planet" or something like that.
I wouldn't put it pass them to be honest...

@Severian it’s great that you see the problem and are actively trying to minimize it, and I very much appreciate it. we all have work to do in this dept, myself included. the specific comment from you that caught my attention was this one:

“Can’t wait to see how many people commenting here who think climate change is a hoax...”

This statement at best doesn’t invite those thinking it’s a hoax to make comments here, at worst it’s going to add fuel to the fire and cause those thinking it’s a hoax to write a rage induced comment. Further it adds no value, other than making it known your position, setting the stage for others in the thread. You can delete this comment and the threads value remains the same, except it’s a bit more civil.

@tekknik I added an edit at the bottom to preserve the integrity of the original quote while attempting to hopefully convey openness.

@Severian I hear you dude, as the quote goes "The point of a discussion is not to win, but to learn.".

It's not like the series has never done that in the past. Ruby and Sapphire had an entire museum dedicated to sea environment.
But eh, gotta write a pointless news on a divisive game just to get more clicks, am I right?

@Severian The earth (just like every planet in the universe) is in a constant state of change. At one point, there was only one continent on the face of the earth. Beyond that, I'm an old fart, and I've seen my share of this bs. Back in the 80s, we were told that there was a whole in our atmosphere, and that in the future we would all burn to death because of it getting larger and larger. Guess what. The whole repaired itself because the Earth is always in a constant state of change.

The same people that push these narratives of humans killing the planet are the exact same people that make billions off of it. Al Gore tells everybody to save the planet by using less energy and not to eat beef because the cow farts kill the planet, and he does this while living in a massive mansion that uses more energy than a small neighborhood and eats cheeseburgers.

It's called hypocrisy, and when you have been on this planet long enough to see the NEXT hoax come along, you'll be just like my generation that recycled newspapers, cans, and bottles all the while preparing for an emanate demise that never came.

Every generation that comes along has their "cause". Every... single... one. Politicians and businessmen take advantage of each new generation because, like it or not, young minds are easily manipulated.

The American right is really going to have a field day with this, and if they weren’t so powerful and dangerous it would be funny.

@PharoneTheGnome "Beyond that, I'm an old fart, and I've seen my share of this bs. Back in the 80s, we were told that there was a whole in our atmosphere, and that in the future we would all burn to death because of it getting larger and larger. Guess what. The whole repaired itself because the Earth is always in a constant state of change."

There's a lot of misinformation in the comments here, but this is particularly bad and I don't want anyone to read it and believe it. It is flatly untrue.

The ozone layer did not magically repair itself. The damage to the ozone layer was primarily because of the use of manufactured chemicals, especially chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) and hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs). These substances were phased out thanks to the Montreal Protocol, an international treaty that was first signed in 1987 and eventually adopted by 197 ratifiers. It's true that ozone depletion has reversed, although the hole has not yet healed entirely—it's predicted to return to pre-1980 levels sometime between 2050 and 2070. But still, the Montreal Protocol is one of the most successful and important international agreements ever signed. You can read more about it here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montreal_Protocol

Ozone depletion is not a problem that magically solved itself. It's dangerous and misleading to say that's what happened. Instead, the world assessed the problem, recognized the risks, and worked together to act. That's how things are supposed to work.

@johnvboy You are exactly right. The models that the UN's IPCC are using predict that we should be experiencing an increase of 4 degrees F higher than what is reflected in reality. In fact, there are 32 models used across the globe and only ONE of them is predicting climate as it actually exists today. And that is the Russian model... that no one is paying any attention to.

The way the models are created is also void of credibility. They are heavily "normalized". Meaning, where there is a gap in crucial data... the analysts fill the gaps with data they anticipate is correct. NOT actual data. So herein lies the folly of the "models" that the MSM are using to push their agenda. These facts come from the leading climatologist (PHD) and director of the Kato institute and Chicago institute of Science. Anyone ia free to look these facts up.

@PharoneTheGnome Agreed. In the 70s it was global COOLING. In the 80s, ozone layer. In the 90s, acid rain. In EACH decade of hysteria, we were fiven 15 years to live.... and guess what? People dont realize that socialists are a REAL threat to the free countries and economies of the world because they fill the public with scare tactics to make people feel like the government is their only way to force "change for good". Not saying that pollution and things like thay arent real. They are and addressing them make living on our planet more pleasent. But if these fear mongers pushing this narrative were REALLY interested in fixing man made carbon emissions that supposedly are going to kill us off in 15 years, their sights would be set squarely and exclusively on China and India. Not the United States who have THE cleanest air in the globe and actually lead all nations in air quality improvement as perpetuated by changes driven by the free market. But no, they are setting their sights on the richest country full of the most gullible citizens to vote them into power and fund their machinations. This should tell you something of their agenda for those who care to seek the truth.

I'm old enough to remember that the world was supposed to end in the year 2000...and then 2006...and 2012. So, when's our next Armageddon? Are we going to stop Goldman from protecting the "Loyfe Cycall"?

@AcesHigh "These facts come from the leading climatologist (PHD) and director of the Kato institute and Chicago institute of Science. Anyone ia free to look these facts up."

It's convenient that you tell people to "look these facts up" rather than citing them yourself. The Cato (not Kato) Institute is a libertarian think tank that generally argues against government intervention in the markets. It is not a scientific institution, and certainly not an unbiased one. Cato has received millions of dollars of funding from Exxon Mobil Corp, and others with a vested interest in the fossil fuel industry. The climatologist who you mentioned who worked at Cato—he stepped down earlier this year (https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2019/05/us-think-tank-shuts-down-prominent-center-challenged-climate-science)—is Pat Michaels, who told Fareed Zakaria on CNN in 2010 that 40 percent of his funding came from the petrochemical industry. (You can watch that video here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fguJod_voPc)

"Not the United States who have THE cleanest air in the globe"

According to the Environmental Performance Index, a joint project of Yale and Columbia universities, the United States is ranked number 10 (Souce: https://epi.envirocenter.yale.edu/epi-indicator-report/AIR)

You are continually throwing out very dubious statements.

@AcesHigh "How do we know that this man made climate change idea is a hoax designed by the Left to gain public support to vote them into a globalist government? Because IF it were true that our emissions were destroying our environment at the level we are being "scared" onto thinking (see the absolute hysteria of Greta Thurnburg) the solution is a very, very simple, inexpensive and MOST green solution of them all.... PLANT MORE TREES! ...If this were a real issue, we would be talking about planting more trees"

Ah, but this presumes that there is no push from the left to plant more trees. But that's not the case—there are a lot of reforestation efforts across the globe right now. There's the Bonn Challenge, launched by Germany's government, which is aiming to bring 150 million hectares of the world’s deforested land into restoration by 2020. (https://www.bonnchallenge.org/content/challenge) There's the Nature Conservancy's "Plant a Billion Trees" initiative. (https://www.nature.org/en-us/get-involved/how-to-help/plant-a-billion/) There's also the 20x20 Initiative, which is focused on Latin America and the Caribbean. (https://www.wri.org/our-work/project/initiative-20x20) There's also the tree-planting search engine Ecosia. (https://www.ecosia.org/?c=en) Those are just a few.

Planting trees is clearly PART of the solution. But you cannot fight climate change through trees alone—there are limits to how many forests our planet can support, and poorly thought out forestation initiatives can have negative consequences for biodiversity or just plain be inefficient. There was a very good research journal article about this subject in Science Advances earlier this year, focused on which areas would offer the best return on investment in terms of planting trees to fight CO2 (https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/5/7/eaav3223). There was also a great piece in Discover about the limitations of fighting climate change via tree-planting. (http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/crux/2019/07/10/reforestation-climate-change-plant-trees/#.XdRkNFdKiUk) No one's saying trees aren't part of the solution. But they're not a cure-all.

@tekknik I was making a joke about what the comments section was gonna be like, that isn't an even remotely partisan statement. Lil presumptuous. Look at my comment, I didn't even express an opinion, let alone force/shut down other ones.

@Patron I really hope you're joking...

@Everyone who appears to think for themselves.

I'm just glad to see that people realize global warming, no matter the scale of how man made it really is, is a total political tool.

I've looked into it and solar flares are directly related to climate. People say when CO2 goes up, climate gets hotter. That's why we gotta cut emissions. But it's the opposite. When it gets hotter, CO2 goes up. That's the fact that many corrupt scientists don't want you to know, because it doesn't match up with everything else.

Regardless, the best way to gain power is using fear. What can the masses fear more than the destruction of our planet? The governments of the world wouldn't pass that up for anything.

@PharoneTheGnome

Thanks for your response. I am of your generation too it seems because I remember the movements and the bombardment of advertisements during Saturday morning cartoons especially.

Here’s what I gather from what you said about why you believe what you do and where you get your information:

Firstly, yes, the science at the time measured the data and made predictions that were based on said data and have gone from global warming to climate change (a separate but more holistic approach defining the extremes of weather patterns). It did not predict the extremes of the weather, yes, but it generally communicated that the world would overheat even though that’s only part of it. In other words, the data at the time and the hypothesized cause and effect that was publicly communicated did not come to pass in the worst extreme predicted, and different metrics were used. This is because the data is still difficult to fully assess, but what we do have is already revealing of what are the impacts of our carbon footprints.

Second, this comes off more as a criticism of one of the more vocal figures rather than the science itself, but unfortunately I do have to agree that Al Gore is indeed a hypocrite because of his carbon footprint and how his advocacy is more of a personal branding rather than one that serves to educate—it was his attempt to remain relevant for another presidential campaign if he wanted it still.

Here’s another part where I do agree that climate change POLITICS rather than climate SCIENCE is the issue. If you look at a lot of the green technologies and startups in the United States and the efforts in China, the problem in the former is that they are not sufficient enough to be economically and environmentally viable earlier than the 2050s, and still only in some countries like Korea, as much of the third world can’t afford them. In China, a lot of the so-called green technology firms are fronts for investment that can be detailed in the documentary “The China Hustle” that are also scrutinized by the CCP.

I think it seems that the politics and economics of climate change are more of the issue rather than the science, and at work we see this even in our own engagement with other groups.

@PieNinja Sadly, she probably isn't.

@PieNinja Yep, in fact the hockey stick chart Al Gore used, showed that as well, the temp increases before the CO2 levels increase, so the CO2 does not cause the temp increase, but the climate change alarmists keep ignoring that.

Global Warming is a hoax, climate change is a hoax, the Climategate scandal in 2009 proves this, many of these climate change promoting scientists literally faked the data to suit their narrative.

Socialists want to destroy private property rights, and the climate change/ enviro radical agenda is just another weapon to destroy private property rights.

@AcesHigh Hahaha, i still remember watching tv documentaries warning about global cooling and a new ice age, in the late 80s, and those documentaries were produced/copyrighted in the late 70s, i was very perplexed to say the least, as i used to believe in global warming back in the 80s, 90s and early 2000s.

@Kalmaro Yes there is. Try doing a university course on it, like I did.

@johnvboy It is led by scientists. Maybe not in the US, but elsewhere it certainly is.

@RainbowGazelle,

Never said there was no impact, just stated it was very subjective science and we do not have a clue what to do about it.

@johnvboy Sorry, I put the answers the wrong way around. I'll swap 'em.

@RainbowGazelle,

There is a lot of politics and money behind all this, which is why it's so hard to trust.

@RainbowGazelle No there isn't. You don't have to take a course when climate scientist are saying that it's not true. It's only a small group that are pushing the idea that our C02 emissions are doing anything.

@johnvboy Has it right, this is mostly about politics and money, especially money. You can get almost any research you want approved if you slap climate change on it.

@TheDavyStar yea totally presumptuous. this is a text based medium, and none of us know you. how do we know it was a joke? someone from the other side reading it, how will they take it?

@Galenmereth firstly I’m not offended. What’s happening here is a group of people are literally yelling and being general scumbags towards others because they don’t believe the same thoughts. secondly there’s a huge difference between name calling and polite discourse. there is nothing wrong with voicing your opinion but if you want someone to actually listen then you should make the environment inviting, not hostile. failing that, those wanting climate change will never convince those who think it’s not a problem.

@tekknik Well, not to put too bluntly a point on it, but it was simply that obvious it was a joke. Like it's not even a jab at your ""side"", you're just self-inserting there. It was a light-hearted comment about how the comments is gonna be a climate change argument. That isn't even a particularly attacking your "side" in particular.

@TheDavyStar what do you mean side? have i made it known what “side” i’m on or is there an assumption on your end. it simply isn’t that obvious, you said:

“ Ahaha same I was thinking Bring on the comments section”

which last i checked means you agree with the parent you replied to. also notice your downvotes? i’m not the only one that feels this way (and i didn’t even downvote you).

@tekknik Well if you haven't made it known what "side" you're on and I haven't expressed any animosity towards any individual "sides" of the climate debate, then surely there is no need to be arguing :]

I checked the downvotes on my comments and I can't see whatever you claim to be seeing, but seeing as how the worth of a comment to me is in its contents rather than up/downvotes, I'll not fret too much over it 👍

@TheDavyStar You tap your comment to see downvotes, they don’t show up by default. You currently have 5 downvotes with 9 upvotes, less than 50% of the cohort liked your comment. Given that it’s not your decision alone cannot decide anything your goal should be to get others on whatever side you’re on.

The argument (if you can even call it that) is not about sides but about creating a proper environment for discussion. Your comment adds zero value to the conversation and only pushes people away. If your goal is to convince others that climate change is worth concerning ones self about then a proper environment for said discussion is the goal. If you value comments based on the contents then please explain how your comment is at all valuable, as it can be removed and the entire conversation doesn’t change even the slightest.

@tekknik I logged out of my account, checked and I am literally not seeing the downvotes, but whatever, if they're there, that's cool, people aren't banned from disliking my comments.

My goal isn't to say climate change is real or not a hoax, it's not to get anyone on my side, it's just to speak my mind and idle thoughts, if it adds nothing, then I honestly don't care. And if that sucks and you think the comment shouldn't exist then you're entitled to that and, well, cool, it's still gonna be there, that's life. I'm not looking for meaningful exchange on climate change here.

@TheDavyStar Cool, and goal is to have a more civil internet where people don’t yell at each other and call them names for disagreeing, where people can have an actual conversation without the children coming out to stop it. If your “idle thoughts“ run against that then I’m gonna call you out.