There is no RationalWiki without you. We are a small non-profit with no staff – we are hundreds of volunteers who document pseudoscience and crankery around the world every day. We will never allow ads because we must remain independent. We cannot rely on big donors with corresponding big agendas. We are not the largest website around, but we believe we play an important role in defending truth and objectivity.
If everyone who saw this today donated $5, we would meet our goal for 2021.
| Fighting pseudoscience isn't free.|
We are 100% user-supported! Help and donate $5, $20 or whatever you can today with !
This was the problem with Gore getting involved
He (probably unintentionally) made it a clear partisan issue. All the climate deniers had to do was turn Republican supports and say "hey look at the Democrat supporting global warming, must me a leftist thing" and they immediately got 35-40% of the US public onside. - π 02:30, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
- That is complete bullshit. It was made a partisan issue by the corporations that paid big bucks to promote FUD to protect their short term profit. -- 220.127.116.11 (talk) 00:45, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
1. Can anyone the rebut the points in my edits?
2. Does anyone truly believe that Gore is irrelevant? If someone were to say "Hey, I saw AIT, and it really made me think that we need to do something about global warming", would any of you say, "Well, you're just being illogical. Gore has fuck-all to do with global warming science. You shouldn't be basing your views on global warming on him"? Is it okay to view AIT as relevant when arguing in support of AGW, but not when arguing against?
3. If someone criticized the truther movement by pointing out the flaws in Loose Change, would it be legitimate to say "Well, Loose Change has fuck-all to do with truther science"? Fdof (talk) 01:40, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
- Lots of fallacies of irrelevance there.