[whell]

Originally Posted by Chicks

Lol, the site you link to has a link right up top to something called "ConservativeU". Clearly a fake news site, no doubt financed by the coal industry. Sorry, but your sources are biased. Real scientists are nearly universally in agreement.

Originally Posted by bobabode

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accuracy_in_Academia

Bwahahahaaa.

Originally Posted by bobabode

C'mon, man. It took only a short search to see that your source is as nuts as they come. Look at the founder of this family business - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reed_Irvine.

You can criticize sources all you want thus insulating yourselves from alternative points of view....just like the folks that you baselessly vilify for allegedly "only watching Fox News and listening to Rush Limbaugh."

But every once in a while, even mainstream media sources let things slip out:

http://www.tbo.com/news/blogs/the-ri...y-so-20140519/

Fully two-thirds of the 11,000 scientific articles Cook and Co. reviewed took no position on AGW. Then, when authors graded themselves, some flipped, but more than a third still declined to say yay or nay on AGW. Perhaps the discrepancy can be attributed to peer pressure. Even so, 64.5 percent — the number who did take a position — is a long way from 97 percent.

The history of the climate change debate seems to have a number of its advocates who aren't ashamed to "cook the books".