I often find it is useful to help decide which "side" of an argument might be the more valid by looking at motivation and also keeping an eye on the money and where it's coming from. Ask yourself, what would possibly be motivating the overwhelming majority (literally thousands) of mainstream scientists to conspire together to invent and perpetuate a hoax that humans are impacting Earth's climate? Then ask yourself what could possibly be motivating the fossil fuel industry to spend billions of dollars a year to promote the idea that global climate change is not due to human activity? Which side has more to gain (especially in the short term)? Food for thought.

[ Show Entire Thread ]