I just did what you asked. This article is composed of 2 things, first of a lot of it is a character assassination for scientist implicated in"climategate", a scandal so big that it was debunked almost immediately, got nobody fired and was a hack of e-mails that were pulled out of context.Climatic Research Unit email controversy - WikipediaWhat's the root word of the 'I' in IPCC?[12] Keeling, C. D., T. P. Whorf, M. Wahlen, and J. van der Plicht 1995, Interannual extremes in the rate of rise of atmospheric carbon dioxide since 1980, Nature, 375, 666–670.What's this nature you refer to? It's on you to prove that.If something is in nature I will assume it's accurate. It's your job to proof otherwise. Then I will vet your sources. Isn't that how debating works?Now go vet it for accuracy.Well I read the article, saw the bottom and saw Cambridge, Oak ridge, and nature. Not exactly a guy posting shit behind a computer like we are.
one of the sources in this article that prompted you asking me to check out my sources.
How Do We Know that Humans Are the Major Cause of Global Warming?
Google 'AGW dissent' for balance.
The second thing it is composed of is repeating that 1000 scientist disagree with climate change, trying to cast doubt on the general consensus. There are 100000's of scientists. I never claimed the consensus was 100 percent. What the article lacks is a scientific, sourced counterargument. And lastly this is what rationalwiki says about the website Globalresearch - RationalWiki
Globalresearch is an anti-"Western" website that can't distinguish between serious analysis and discreditable junk — and so publishes both.
Last edited: