[ Envirowatchers ] [ Main Menu ]
16870
From: Logan, [DNS_Address]
Subject: REAL SCIENCE finds carbon dioxide’s effects on the climate are “neglig
URL: Carbon dioxide has been demonized, but the truth is that it’s what is sustaining life on our planet
|
REAL SCIENCE finds carbon dioxide’s effects on the climate are “negligible” Climate change activists love to insist that carbon dioxide is behind global warming, and they’ve made a sport out of refuting claims to the contrary. However, it’s getting harder to defend their delusional stance as more than 100 different scientific papers and counting show that carbon dioxide’s effect on the climate is actually quite small. The papers use terms such as “negligible” to describe the effects of CO2 on the climate. For example, a paper from last year said there was not “a consistent warming with gradual increase (in CO2) in low to high latitudes in both hemispheres, as it should be from the global warming theory.” After pointing out the complexity of climate predictions, the researchers said it is simply not possible to support the notion that global warming stems from human-caused greenhouse effect. Last fall, a group of 500 scientists and other professionals in the climate science space penned a letter to the United Nations sharing their view that there isn’t a climate crisis and that they consider spending so much money on the issue to be “cruel and imprudent.” In the letter, they encouraged the UN to follow a climate policy that is based on “sound science, realistic economics and genuine concern for those harmed by costly but unnecessary attempts at mitigation.” The fact remains that the so-called global warming science that many adherents love to quote is based on a biased interpretation of questionable science that keeps getting repeated as though it were fact. MIT Professor Richard Lindzen, an atmospheric sciences emeritus professor behind more than 200 different scientific papers, said that climate alarmists’ voices seem to get louder and louder as the climate changes less. He also noted that in a 2007 paper, the UN International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) admitted that it’s not possible to predict future climate states. Lying to get what they want He believes that those sounding the alarm bell about climate change are using it as a way of getting what they want. Activists are seeking supporters and funding, while politicians are using it to gain power and money. The media, he says, uses it to grab headlines because “Doomsday scenarios sell.” The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) was caught publishing fake data on global warming in a failed attempt to debunk a UN report’s assertion that global warming was slowing down. Meanwhile, data compiled by NASA showed that carbon dioxide was cooling the atmosphere instead of warming it up as commonly claimed. That’s not surprising when you consider the fact that 95 percent of climate software models have actually turned out to be wrong. Carbon dioxide has been demonized, but the truth is that it’s what is sustaining life on our planet. If we got rid of it the way many climate change alarmists are pushing for, life on our planet would collapse. Plants wouldn’t be able to breathe and would essentially suffocate. We’d have no food to eat and it would spell the end of mankind. So why are some people on a mission to get rid of it? |
Responses:
[16871]
16871
From: Redhart, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Natural News: most discredited source on internet
URL: https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/natural-news/#prettyPhoto
|
🚩🚩🚩🚩🚩🚩🚩🚩🚩🚩🚩🚩 CONSPIRACY-PSEUDOSCIENCE Sources in the Conspiracy-Pseudoscience category may publish unverifiable information that is not always supported by evidence. These sources may be untrustworthy for credible/verifiable information, therefore fact checking and further investigation is recommended on a per article basis when obtaining information from these sources. See all Conspiracy- Pseudoscience sources. Overall, we rate Natural News a Questionable source based on promotion of quackery level pseudoscience and conspiracy theories, as well as extreme right wing bias. This is one of the most discredited sources on the internet. Detailed Report Factual Reporting: LOW Country: USA World Press Freedom Rank: USA 48/180 History Founded in 2005, Natural News is a conspiracy and pseudoscience website that routinely publishes false information. The founder is Mike Adams, who owns several Questionable websites such as News Target and Trump.news. Natural News has been blocked by Google and several others over the course of its history. Funded by / Ownership Natural News is owned by Mike Adams, who owns numerous other fake and or controversial websites. The website, like all of Mike Adams properties are funded through online advertising. Analysis / Bias In review, Mike Adams is known as the Health Ranger according to Rationalwiki. However, they point out dozens of cases where his claims are false. Besides promoting pseudoscience, Natural News is an extreme right wing biased source that frequently promotes Donald Trump propaganda such as these: President Trump has a constitutional MANDATE to use the military to protect our southern border – Richard Sacks. This article is sourced to Natural News and Brighteon News, which we have never heard of. In this conspiracy story, there is zero evidence and hence why it is a conspiracy: CONFIRMED: Barack Obama was running the entire spygate operation that violated federal law to spy on Trump.campaign officials. In general, politically, all stories favor the right and promote pseudoscience such as chemtrails, the Sandy Hook shooting being a false flag: Sandy Hook: mind-control flicker effect. Lastly, this source denies the consensus on climate change without evidence as seen here: Climate change cultists are now taking over your local weather forecast. A factual search reveals that Natural News has failed too many fact checks to list here. Overall, we rate Natural News a Questionable source based on promotion of quackery level pseudoscience and conspiracy theories, as well as extreme right wing bias. This is one of the most discredited sources on the internet. ( |
Responses:
None
[ Envirowatchers ] [ Main Menu ]