The dam is finally cracking." Award-winning journalist Alex Newman breaks down how the "man-made global warming" narrative is finally crumbling.
Nope. The dam cracked decades ago. Why are you speaking as though the dishonest, Marxist nature of the
Climate religions is somehow only now being revealed?
Global Warming and Climate Change are two fanatical Marxist religions that resonate with the less-than-fully-educated which is why recruiters for such religions target the scientifically illiterate, the mathematically incompetent and the logically inept, i.e. those who would never in a million years be able to call boooooolsch't on any of the egregious violations of physics, math or logic.
As such,
Climate clergy order their congregations to dogmatically believe that the religion is thettled thienth, ... an order that the stupid, mindless congregation OBEYS with nary a question (because asking questions, performing independent research and applying critical reasoning are also absolutely prohibited). At this point, the Climate clergy demands that the congregation refer to them as Climate Scientists ... and the congregation OBEYS with nary a question, for the same reason.
Show me a believer in
Global Warming,
Climate Change or
greenhouse effect and I will show you a scientifically illiterate moron who thinks he's a science genius *AND* who gullibly believes that all the world's thmart perthonth believe as he does, because that's what he was ORDERED to believe, and he OBEYED.
"Three new peer-reviewed papers, published in major prestigious scientific journals... completely undermine the alleged scientific consensus on man-made global warming."
I'm going to advise you against making any mention of "peer reviewed" anything, and to avoid referring to "scientific journals" (or any publications for that matter). Doing so makes you sound like you are totally uneducated yourself ("peer review" has nothing to do with science, but the world's morons think it does). Also, when discussing science, stick to
science, not what any journal has to say. If the jounal is publishing new science then great, refer to that science and only that science, not to what the journal says. If the journal is asserting what science says, then don't get anywhere near it, and certainly don't cite it or quote it.
Also, if it is English text and not a lot of math (or formal symbology), it likely isn't science.
Stick with science and only science. No journals. No "experts." No news articles. Only science.