4 ms·
Yes it is because it is clearly mentioned in the article that the pros and cons were shown in a way that seemed equally important. This is fuel for conspiracy t
by rocknor 5y ago
Yes it is because it is clearly mentioned in the article that the pros and cons were shown in a way that seemed equally important. This is fuel for conspiracy theorists who are always looking to brainwash children.
- adevx 5y ago"Brainwash children" How would that not apply to the climate change movement. The moment one tries to suppress an open debate is the moment you lose credibility. PS. I am not an anthropogenic climate change denier, but realize climate change has become a religion where any publicly voiced contrarian view will be career suicide which I think is pretty sad.