[quote=@POOHEAD189]
So we won't at least take note of this. Just a bunch of denials. 
Alright. 

[hr] 
[@SleepingSilence] So despite myself I actually looked at your climate change links and video. 
You do know that every source you linked was biased, and that Marc Morano has literally no scientific expertise and has been called the 'Climate Change Misinformer of the Year' a few years back, and that Bill Nye caught him in pigeon holding the facts like, 2 minutes into your video. 

Do you actually try to look up unbiased facts or do you look up facts that adhere to your preferred world view? And that is a legit question, I am not trying to be an ass to you. 
[/quote]

Seriously none taken.

Though the very first part of the post, despite being vague, is kind of broadly doing that. Whether to me or not, it's still at least ad-hominem that doesn't really add any conversation. But I'm not taking it personally in that regard, assuming you meant the others who failed to address you with any counter information. (you did use a separation thingy, so I'll assume that's the case. ^-^')

I see this proclaimed a lot, so I feel like debunking this general idea through your question. Hopefully you'll better understand my position.

You cannot just state "bias" information, and expect that to be a proper counter to anything I stated. That doesn't actually make it wrong or right. Everyone in the world has bias and you can easily be accused of the same thing, but that wouldn't matter. Even sites, I wouldn't normally use, because their often bias themselves. Mashable and Talking Points is left leaning bias sites.

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/talking-points-memo/

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/mashable/

You need to counter what was actually wrong in the articles, the 2015 article has an absolute truckload of inside link sources and I at least discredited NOAA through various sources on their previous shady practices.

I'm probably not always providing the best resources possible, but I blame google's outright burial of possible better content. And because I can't be expected to do everything for only a passive response, but I do sincerely at least do a through skimming before I post anything. (the video was just sort of, off the cuff, but Bill Nye should never be taken seriously after his gender videos/outright denial of actual science/biology.)

Also, whether that one guy has done things wrong in the past. "Marc Morano" I'm willing to accept is true, if you provide me with any sources. But otherwise, who cares what someone is called? Trump was/is called Hitler, doesn't make it true. But the fact you'd seemingly defend Bill Nye, who is outright proclaiming to jail skeptics is precisely why I think their is caution by many in the first place, because it leads to extremism politics like Bill Nye. Who straight up lies and misleads his audience.

My follow up question to you, which may sound like a leading question, but it really is exactly what you need to believe...

Do you agree with my assessment (and Bill Nye's) That mainstream 'climate change' theory) is that CO2 is the major problem, it will lead to global catastrophe and it's solely/nearly all man made and it can only be fixed by big government intervention and somehow our example, can also allow us to do the same things for all third world countries, somehow allowing us humans to subsequently change the weather?