• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The vast majority of AGW denier media comes from conspiracy blog websites that exist just for that purpose.

It's just another think tank with a flavor that you like.

All of the credible science outlets have approximately the same flavor. Literally every scientific institution on the planet backs up what the scientists are saying.
 
All of the credible science outlets have approximately the same flavor. Literally every scientific institution on the planet backs up what the scientists are saying.
It's way too easy to poke holes in what most of climate science says.
My posts on this forum go back to 2013. I generally quote actual data
or present good sound reasoning. I don't quote blogs, because they
are dismissed out of hand. Data is changed with a obvious bias. Data
is cherry picked. Claims are exaggerated or just plain silly. Ordinary
events are portrayed as new and frightening. Climate scientists are
caught scheming or with their hands in the cookie jar. Much of it is
driven by politics, and not science. They've been at this for over a
third of a century, longer if you count Acid Rain, The Ozone Hole,
Global Cooling, and Nuclear Winter. It's all been bullshit.
 
It's way too easy to poke holes in what most of climate science says.
My posts on this forum go back to 2013. I generally quote actual data
or present good sound reasoning. I don't quote blogs, because they
are dismissed out of hand. Data is changed with a obvious bias. Data
is cherry picked. Claims are exaggerated or just plain silly. Ordinary
events are portrayed as new and frightening. Climate scientists are
caught scheming or with their hands in the cookie jar. Much of it is
driven by politics, and not science. They've been at this for over a
third of a century, longer if you count Acid Rain, The Ozone Hole,
Global Cooling, and Nuclear Winter. It's all been bullshit.
Oh looky you have an opinion. LOL
 
It's way too easy to poke holes in what most of climate science says.
My posts on this forum go back to 2013. I generally quote actual data
or present good sound reasoning. I don't quote blogs, because they
are dismissed out of hand. Data is changed with a obvious bias. Data
is cherry picked. Claims are exaggerated or just plain silly. Ordinary
events are portrayed as new and frightening. Climate scientists are
caught scheming or with their hands in the cookie jar. Much of it is
driven by politics, and not science. They've been at this for over a
third of a century, longer if you count Acid Rain, The Ozone Hole,
Global Cooling, and Nuclear Winter. It's all been bullshit.

Who are you to suggest that every scientific institution on the planet is wrong?
 
It's way too easy to poke holes in what most of climate science says.
My posts on this forum go back to 2013. I generally quote actual data
or present good sound reasoning. I don't quote blogs, because they
are dismissed out of hand. Data is changed with a obvious bias. Data
is cherry picked. Claims are exaggerated or just plain silly. Ordinary
events are portrayed as new and frightening. Climate scientists are
caught scheming or with their hands in the cookie jar. Much of it is
driven by politics, and not science. They've been at this for over a
third of a century, longer if you count Acid Rain, The Ozone Hole,
Global Cooling, and Nuclear Winter. It's all been bullshit.
Now that is what I would call a huge steaming pile of bovine fecal material!
 
Lucky for us they link the original research papers and post verbatim extracts.

And then there's this.
"The Columbia Journalism Review describes Media Bias/Fact Check as an amateur attempt at categorizing media bias and Van Zandt as an "armchair media analyst."[3]"
Media Bias/Fact Check - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org › wiki › Media_Bias › Fact_Check


Media Bias/Fact Check (MBFC) is a website founded in 2015 by editor Dave Van Zandt. The website has been described as an amateur effort to rate news ...
No, Jack. They are crackpot sites.
 
And do you think the Union of Concerned Scientists is an objective non-biased organization?
It's just another think tank with a flavor that you like.
It is a total rip off which extracts money from idiots who join it.
 
And still the end of the world has not happened. It just keeps going on fine. How frustrating for the human haters.
Yep we all agreed it was supposed to end today. Lol
 
And still the end of the world has not happened. It just keeps going on fine. How frustrating for the human haters.

You are already seeing the massive cost of climate change all across the world.




Also there are great economical benefits from a transition away from fossil fuels.



There it also are a great health benefits with a transition away from fossil fuels.

 
Back
Top Bottom