Le site c3headlines.com est-il sûr ?

Distorted and dishonest; this site promotes and uses co2science.org, which is funded by ExxonMobil and Peabody Energy (a coal mining company), who have spent billions, over decades, producing fake anti-climate-science content for the web. Do not use this website.

I cannot find any denial that the climate is changing, only the opposite. The evidence presented is available in all historical references used by modern science. All of the charts can be verified by anyone that wishes to thanks to the source references. The planet is warming up, no one is arguing that, only that we cannot stop it any more than we can stop an ice age. We need to clean the planet for the right reasons, or we ignore things like the "recycled" plastic bottles being dumped in the sea is such quantities that it can now be seen from space.

Whatever your opinion is regarding politically infested climate science is, actually rating this site as 'untrustworthy' rather than controversial just because disagrees with your gospel is both immature and intellectually dishonest. My conclusion is this site at least straight forward even if you don't agree with it but you should be forewarned you may get your feelings hurt enough to come and try to ruin a website's reputation. If that's the case might I recommend rather than rating it untrustworthy you instead rate it unfit for children. At least that way is more honest.

It provides a wealth of information to counter the lavishly Government-funded propaganda about an alleged "man-made global warming" which is not happening, never happened, and could not happen even if we wanted. Of course, in their usual dishonesty, Warmist fanatics have flagged it a "untrustworthy" because it punctures their cherished delusions. This is par for the Course for Marxists, whose modus operandi is utter contempt to the truth.

Why does this site have a "poor reputation"? Is it because it refutes the climate change orthodoxy? This site does not contain malware,and that is the only reason for a site to be rated"poor". Will everything that goes against current global warming hysteria be rated "poor" or "Bad" by the fanatics who are convinced the world is going to end unless we go back to living like we did 200 years ago?

Typepad blog rehashing misleading claims from other blogs that largely deny existence of human-made climate change. Blog entries rail against "green-sharia scientists" and "green alarmist, taxpayer-funded scientists", apparently meaning the body of work on the subject. "Amazing down-rating a site just because you disagree with the author. Have Alarmists no shame?" I don't know what you mean. I have downrated it on trustworthiness because the content is misleading, and that seems reasonable. As an analogy, what rating would you give to a site that suggests that smoking cures cancer?