What do you think after seeing this new information?
After seeing this "new information" I think your post is one of the most demonstrably bogus and downright risible things you've ever tried to pass off here,
@country_hick, and considering some of the other uninformed and misinformed political claptrap you like to indulge in, that's really saying something!
Your idea with this post here seems to be that if you throw a whole lot of bullsh*t at the wall some of it might stick. The problem though is that virtually everything being presented by all of your sources is biased opinion, misinformation, innuendo, insinuation, conspiracy theory and outright falsehoods spinkled with a few actual facts that are woefully out of context with the subject at hand, such as the notion that C02 levels during the Devonian period in the Paleozoic era 400 million years ago throughout the formative epoch of life on earth somehow has any practical connection to our current environmental circumstances.
Anyone who takes the time to apply a little critical thinking and analysis to the sources linked in your post or looks carefully and discerningly at the misinformation and political bias being presented here will have a hard time not bursting into raucous laughter.
Let's take a look at the sources for all the links you provide.
First you post a quote,
"Catastrophic Man-Made Global Warming' is a complete hoax and science lie" brought to us by an outfit called NaturalNews.com.
According to Wikipedia, -
Natural News.com - "
Natural News (formerly
NewsTarget, which is now a separate sister site) is a conspiracy theory and fake news website.
[2] The website sells various dietary supplements, promotes alternative medicine, tendentious nutrition and health claims,
[3] fake news,
[4][5][6] and espouses various conspiracy theories.
[7] "
Then you go on the cite this so called, "
No Climate Emergency letter 500 Scientists claim to have submitted to UN". The letter itself is nothing more than a political screed that offers not one fact, reference, scientific paper or other documentation to back up its claim and most of the so called "prominent scientists" who've participated are anything but that and many of whom are not even connected to the discipline of climate science research.
As for any scientific claims actually put forth by these 500 "Clintel scientists" asserting that no climate emergency exists, critical analysis demonstrates otherwise:
-Climatefeedback.org -
"Letter signed by “500 scientists” relies on inaccurate claims about climate science"
Analysis of "
There is no climate emergency"
Published in
clintel.nl, by
Alberto Prestininzi,
Benoit Rittaud,
Christopher Monckton,
Fritz Vahrenholt,
Guus Berkhou,
Ingemar Nordin,
Jeffrey Fos,
Jim O'Brien,
Morten Jodal,
Reynald du Berger,
Richard Lindzen,
Rob Lemeire,
Terry Dunleavy,
Viv Forbes on 23 Sep. 2019
Six scientists analyzed the letter and estimate its overall scientific credibility to be 'very low'.
A majority of reviewers tagged the article as:
Biased,
Cherry-picking,
Inaccurate,
Misleading.
Let's now consider the video you posted which discusses this "Letter signed by 500 scientists" which to
reiterate, is nothing more that a political screed full of highly biased opinion but no actual facts.
This slim-on-facts propaganda video is the production of a group called "
Friends of Science". Well, just who is "Friends of Science"?
According to Wikipedia (and other sources)
Friends of Science (FoS) is a non-profit advocacy organization based in Calgary, Alberta, Canada. The organization rejects the established scientific conclusion that humans are largely responsible for the currently observed global warming. Rather, they propose that "the Sun is the main direct and indirect driver of climate change," not human activity. They argued against the Kyoto Protocol. The society was founded in 2002 and launched its website in October of that year. They are largely funded by the fossil fuel industry.
Then you go on to cite an article published by an outfit called "Watts Up With That" called "
Life on Earth was nearly doomed by too little CO2" by a guy named
Dennis T. Avery. Wikipedia has a few factoids worth considering about this fellow:
"Avery is an outspoken supporter of biotechnology, pesticides, irradiation, industrial farming, and free trade, as well as a long-time critic of organic farming and farm subsidies. He does not believe that DDT causes egg shell thinning in eagles."He works for the
Hudson Institute, a conservative "think tank" and policy advocate.
Hudson Institute's financial backers include major agricultural companies (e.g. ConAgra, Cargill) and pesticide manufacturers (e.g. Monsanto Company, DuPont, Dow-Elanco, Sandoz, Ciba-Geigy.
"Watts Up With That", the link you posted with Dennis T. Avery's opinion piece is described by
Media/Fact Check, an organization that objectively analyses the veracity of both left and right wing news outlets as: CONSPIRACY-PSEUDOSCIENCE
"Overall, we rate Watts Up with That a strong pseudoscience and conspiracy website based on the promotion of consistent human influenced climate denialism propaganda."
"Watts Up With That" - is run by a guy named
Anthony Watts. He is a blogger and professional climate change denier who often works under the auspices of the Hudson Institute.
The Heartland Institute is a right wing conservative and libertarian think tank and propaganda organization that funded his site and
"promotes climate change denial, advocates for smoker's rights, for the privatization of public resources including school privatization, for school vouchers, for lower taxes and against subsidies and tax credits for individual businesses, and against an expanded federal role in health care, among other issues". In the 1990s, before adopting their industry funded climate change denial the Heartland Institute worked with the tobacco company Philip Morris to attempt to discredit the health risks of secondhand smoke and to lobby against smoking bans.
And finally you link to the article "
Apollo Astronaut: Climate Alarmism Is the ‘Biggest Fraud in the Field of Science’, published by the web site CNSnews.com
- (who's motto is "the
right news,
right now")
Media/Fact Check's analysis of CNSnews.com describes the site as a "QUESTIONABLE SOURCE" - "
A questionable source exhibits one or more of the following: extreme bias, consistent promotion of propaganda/conspiracies, poor or no sourcing to credible information, a complete lack of transparency and/or is fake news. Fake News is the deliberate attempt to publish hoaxes and/or disinformation for the purpose of profit or influence (Learn More). Sources listed in the Questionable Category may be very untrustworthy and should be fact checked on a per article basis."
So, what you've served up here
@country_hick is a big smelly spoonful of extreme right wing spin and climate change denial propaganda coupled with virtually no relevant actual scientific facts.
In today's world of fake news and propaganda on the internet it is vital to discern who is behind it and what their true agenda may be.