They are Innuits. Eskimo is a derogatory and insulting term. The phrasing of your sentence is also insulting.

"Companies that make documentaries don't do it to inform, they do it for ratings, profit. They can and do twist anything. Question everything, especially when it's a nice friendly narrative that gives you confirmation bias!"

if you can't explain how you know this, then I cannot take your word seriously.

here look, for example, this is how you do it.

The US Military on the Front Lines of Rising Seas (2016)

Rising oceans threaten to submerge 128 military bases: report

NY Times

What's your conclusion?

Innuit is one of the two main languages, and groups of the Eskimo people. insulting? no..

I asked a question at the end of the post, so that means I'm still formulating one.

Well it's either,

1. Documentaries are made for profit or to further an agenda.

or

2. Documentaries are purely an alteristic service provided for the good of mankind?

It's you that needs the source to say it's 2.

are you going to prove to me that your statement is true or not?

I provided some sources to convey what the documentary I saw was talking about. I don't think there is anything left for me to prove now.

edit: obviously we got off on a bad foot here, the facebook thing is a joke. i'm willing to just let this back and forth mocojumbo go. peace?

Actually climate change is the perfect catalyst for higher taxes, which governments love because it makes their lives easier and allows government to expand. Look at the solutions governments and supra national governments propose - the solutions almost always involve higher taxes, more regulation and forced redistribution of wealth. If you can convince a population that the sky is falling and that the only solution is for them to pay more tax, people will beg to be taxed more.

The media need a good story, and catastrophic climate change fits the bill. Scientists need federal funding, so they keep telling politicians the worst case scenarios. I would look up what some recently retired climate scientists have to say on the matter as they have nothing to lose.

Also, of course climate change is real. I would be surprised if 1% didn't agree with that. But 99% of climate scientists certainly do not believe that man made Co2 emissions are going to cause dangerous global warming and even if they did, science is not done by consensus.

I hope Trump launches a huge investigation into climate change and we find out the truth. We know that he is a skeptic and has brought in a lot of right wing people, so if they use all their arguments and still deem climate change a big issue, then you know that shit is a serious problem.

Peace :)

All I can ascertain is that you believe that the majority of the entire planets scientisits and scientific organizations are colluding together in some sort of conspiracy theory to fabricate "Climate Change". - They aren't. They have real science that you can look at and verify and in some cases, repeat yourself.

Unless you have evidence that this conspiracy theory you are peddling is factual, then you really have no basis to stand on, I and any other logical-thinking person will believe the majority of scientists that climate change is real, it's the scientisits job to get educated, find cause and effect and extrapolate. - They have done so and you should stand by their findings, not a politicians.

We have had decades worth of debate. It was an issue in the 90's. It is an issue today, if we spend the next several decades continuing to debate, then nothing will get done and we will continue to do more damage to the planet.
Remember, the majority of the planets scientists stand behind the findings that climate change is happening. It's their job to know, the politicians are not scientists, they need to shut up and stand behind what scientists find.
Converesly, scientists haven't actually stopped making experiments for decades, recording data, taking samples... And they still point to increases to Carbon and thus Climate change. It is simply irrefutable.
All the climate data next year will still point to climate change. Same with the year after that.

Trumps issue is... He follows garbage "news" like infowars that peddles conspiracy theories without any factual basis. That is dangerous and stupid.

Pauline Hanson and One Nation here in Australia is just as bad, Malcolm Roberts is a Climate-Change Denier, he had a Physicist literally throw evidence of climate change at him, he had Australia's national chief science officer school him... And he still deny's climate change.
Sadly he did get elected, even if it was only 77 first preference votes. - He has a history of working and running coal mines, he has an ulterior motive to bolster his own financial interests in the coal industry, sadly Pauline Hanson supports the moron.

They even went to the Great Barrier Reef to "Prove" that Coral bleaching isn't happening. - Not only were they in a part of the Reef that is the least damaged... But it was bleached a long time ago.
Coral can actually rejuvinate over time after a bleaching event, given some time and the right circumstance, but if it gets bleached to many times in quick succession, it will not recover, sadly they were ignorant about that particular tidbit.