1600 scientists and scholars earlier signed a letter to the contrary but like your conjecture fact checkers aligned with news organizations owned by institutions having a financial interest in the UN made sure to refute their claims as having any validity. Not surprising. There you go.
It's not me claiming conjecture; the article is objectively full of it, in plain English. And conjecture has little place in the discussion of scientific findings. I'm disappointed by this because all the points in the article ironically have less weight because of it. Results should speak for themselves; if they need heavy embellishing, they can't be trusted.
Some fact checkers being linked by three degrees of separation to the UN is suspicious and bad, but Soon's research being funded by oil companies is innocent and "just trying to help", right? Can you not see it could also be the other way around, or even both and neither? Again, it should be irrelevant if the results are strong enough
Before you buy into this Super Ad consider this :
https://www.theepochtimes.com/article/prominent-scientists-challenge-key-data-underlying-climate-change-agenda-5593800
I considered it - found it to be disappointingly full of conjecture
1600 scientists and scholars earlier signed a letter to the contrary but like your conjecture fact checkers aligned with news organizations owned by institutions having a financial interest in the UN made sure to refute their claims as having any validity. Not surprising. There you go.
epoch times are right wing Iunatics, they spread a bunch of misinformation about covid also. get outta here.
It's not me claiming conjecture; the article is objectively full of it, in plain English. And conjecture has little place in the discussion of scientific findings. I'm disappointed by this because all the points in the article ironically have less weight because of it. Results should speak for themselves; if they need heavy embellishing, they can't be trusted.
Some fact checkers being linked by three degrees of separation to the UN is suspicious and bad, but Soon's research being funded by oil companies is innocent and "just trying to help", right? Can you not see it could also be the other way around, or even both and neither? Again, it should be irrelevant if the results are strong enough
Science is literally conjecture. A theory is a conjecture ( a hypothesis) more or less corroborated empirically.
None of the physics points I make are very polemic. Most science so far corroborate them. The only debate is on human reactions to the physical facts.