other stocks (food, water, raw material), with a mouthpiece 2-3 thousands politicians, “scientists”, journalists, and unfortunately many environmental organizations, which spread the relevant “news” uncritically.
A) Never faced the actual scientific questions posed by the other side, B) Threw mud vehemently and suspiciously at those who had a different opinion, as paid by oil companies, C) Exploited - misinforming - to the outmost the urban heat island effect (due to cement) and D) strongly overbid regarding ice melting in the poles (which anyway melt during the summer and reshape during winter), selectively presenting in the media only the summer melting. Depending on the particular local conditions ice melts more elsewhere, and less in other places. It is however more important what happens with temperatures on an annual basis and on a global scale. For example, coastal ice of Greenland was melting until two years ago a little more, but much less in the Antarctic, with a final melting of the total ice relatively smaller, which leads to a cooling of the planet.
In good faith, we initially assumed that probably in order to rapidly reduce environmental pollution, the «masterminds» considered necessary to spread these false news. But, regardless of the Μachiavellian - perverse of the matter, if the opposing voices were right, and not those on the global warming, and given that the interests of the few (who unfortunately often lie) do not necessarily coincide with the common benefit, the things were getting a very dangerous and misleading turn. P. ex. the priorities for infrastructure are totally different for the countries convinced that we are going to be “heated”, and other actions are needed for adaptation in the opposite direction. The excessive profits of the «masterminds» by the disorientation of priorities may again become enormous. They may at most make an apology later that it was a mistake (supposedly not intentionally, claiming that they did not know that things are heading in the opposite direction).