[Spanker]

Here's an interesting (to me) link on the interesting website dailysceptic.org:

"There's is no climate change emergency"

And another website that I find interesting to digest is expose-news.com.
They often like to provide a statistical analysis on official data, whilst backing up their claims, findings and opinions with links to official governmental and institutional sites.
A typical article on climate change psychology is here for example:

"Covid PsyOps Are Now Being Used for Climate Change"

I encourage anyone to read the many interesting articles on such sites to see what alternative views are out there. You may not believe them. They may not fit in with your view of the world. They may not even be true!
But no matter what you think about "climate change deniers", "anti-vaxxers", "conspiracy theorists" or any other term that has been woven into our vernacular to deliberately belittle others who oppose a governmental narrative, I encourage you to ask yourself the question "why aren't these topics/views/official data/statistics/scientific facts from experts etc. debated or challenged in detail on the sites, channels or newspapers that I use to form my own opinions?".
You may come to the conclusion that it's because it's all BS.
Or you may come to the conclusion that it's rather odd that you've not heard of such opinions in detail before. Like someone is keeping something from you.
Who knows how you interpret it. It's a rhetorical question anyway.

I've no interest in debating or trying to change anyone's opinion on climate change or any other of the divisive topics in today's society.
But I will say that after many years of looking at (what I believe to be) both sides of the fence, I'm confident that the majority of the population, with their reliance on the typical TV news and so-called newspapers, are blissfully unaware of what's really going on in the world. Just an opinion.

And I'm sorry to say that Google isn't your friend. And hasn't been for a very long time.
None of the major tech platforms are. Read about the Twitter Files (or maybe you haven't)?
During the World Economic Forum’s (WEF) Sustainable Development Impact Meetings recently, the unelected globalists held a panel on “Tackling Disinformation” where participants from the UN, CNN, and Brown University discussed how to best control narratives.

Melissa Fleming, Under-Secretary-General for Global Communications at the United Nations, highlighted that the UN had partnered with several big tech companies, including TikTok and Google, to control COVID and climate narratives while claiming, “We own the science.”

“We own the science, and we think that the world should know it, and the platforms themselves also do” — Melissa Fleming

See it, with opinion, here
Is that what you want when you search for something? Collusion to shape your thoughts?
Do you want to search for something or someone controversial only to be inundated with negative hit-pieces or so-called Fact Checkers trying to suspiciously debunk or obfuscate what you're trying to do a deep-dive on?
Or would you rather have the opportunity to make your own mind up on a topic where there's controversy and opposing views AND data from credible sources?

Please don't think that a quick trip to Wikipedia is going to allow you to get to the bottom of things either. You may find the same shenanigans going down over there. I've seen it with my own eyes when a healthy, positive article on a scientist turned toxic just before the tiny little padlock closed on the "edit button" at the top of the article.

"Trust No One" to coin a phrase from The X-Files (especially if they've received funding or a grant from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. Oops... I've let slip a personal opinion there).