>>10480725Still no evidence that GE is bribing climatologists.
>>10480727>>10480731>It's a religion!!!1!That's getting boring now. And your analogy makes no sense - the definition of a religion is not that it charges a tax.
>>10480752>The vast majority of which work for [Oil Company], [Energy Company],Huh? No they don't.
Do you have a source for that?
>or [Communist Agenda].?????????
>I hope you understand, that's the point of having a "platform" of scientists to lobby your agenda. It is LOBBYING.You still haven't posted any evidence that the majority of climatologists are being bribed. Asserting it over and over doesn't make it true.
>I showed the conglomerate forming together to start the climate change movementThat literally was not in either link you posted.
>You need to improve your ability to fight off confirmation bias, because I've proved everything I claimed.You've proved that I get my knowledge of AGW from the news? When did that happen?
>>10480757Prove it.
>>10480762An eight-year-old on TV struggling to measure a well-known property of a gas doesn't discredit all of quantum mechanics. What was the argument even supposed to be?
>>10480770The vast majority aren't. If Exxon was making AGW up why isn't every other climatologist ripping those studies to shreds?
>>10480785>You haven't posted any evidence at all for your claimsThe vast majority of my claims have been "not liking something doesn't make it a religion" and "you need to provide evidence for your massive conspiracy theory, or nobody will accept it". Neither of those needs much evidence.
What evidence do you want me to post?
>I've literally showed these megacorporations colluding together to start the popular culture of climate changeYou've literally never shown that, you've only asserted it.
>explained how the majority of "climate scientists" work for oil and energy sectorAgain, you've only ever asserted that. You would need to post actual evidence.
