Le site theclimatescepticsparty.blogspot.com est-il sûr ?

Site web inconnu

Score de sécurité du site web

24%
Le score de sécurité de WOT est basé sur notre technologie unique et sur les avis des experts de la communauté.
Ce site est-il revendiqué ?
Non
Avis de la Communauté
★ 1.4
L'algorithme de WOT
29%
Sécurité pour les Enfants
N/A

Que dit la communauté ?

Laisser un commentaire

Quelle note entre 1 et 5 donneriez-vous à ce site ?
starempty-star
starempty-star
starempty-star
starempty-star
starempty-star
Faites part de vos commentaires et aidez la communautéLes commentaires doivent comporter au moins 15 caractèresChoisissez les tags qui décrivent le mieux ce site web
Logiciels malveillants ou virus
Mauvais service client
Hameçonnage
Escroquerie
Potentiellement illégal
Fallacieux ou contraire à l’éthique
Risques relatifs à la confidentialité
Suspect
Haine, discrimination
Escroquerie
Programme potentiellement indésirable
Publicités / fenêtres pop-up
Contenu pour adultes
Nudité accidentelle
Violent ou choquant
Annuler
Publier le commentaire
1.4
starhalf-starempty-starempty-starempty-star

Basé sur 32 avis

Classer par :
Le plus récent
The website contains all the usual pseudoscientific denials against climate change science. It invokes conspiracy theories, results to cherry picking and ad hominem attacks. It's definitely not a credible site.
Utile
The necessity of questioning popular 'wisdom' begins with having the courage to ignore catcalls...not with the suppressing of original thought. Claiming political / commercial motivation .. or any .. for such is blatant mudslinging, and should discredit the complainer. WoT has been shamefully politicized as a method to route people away from controversial ideas.
1
I follow this site on RSS so as to get away from cherry-picking style results on Search and sites such as Grist - which flog 'denialism' as if it was a sin rather than an essential and regular part of scientific method : skepticism of unprovable prophecy.
Utile
There is nothing wrong with site. It is just one of many sites that show a different viewpoint from what the media rams down our throats. WOT should not be used to inhibit freedom of thought. I felt strongly enough about this principle to register on WOT so I could give my rating, which is nothing about which side of the climate science I believe in.
1
The only reason this site is getting bad ratings is that it exposes people to ideas counter to their beliefs and it makes them uncomfortable.
Utile
All sites that attempt to show a different opinion of the leftist agenda regularly get negative ratings on WOT. This is a direct attempt by those who are afraid of exposing the weakness of their argument to stifle any dissenting opinions or facts
1
This site has relevant information to debunk the AGW position. The people who promote the hypothesis of AGW are afraid to deal with the information that contradicts their propaganda.
Utile
This website is one of a myriad that have popped up to spread scientific illiteracy and disinformation -- as well as religious intolerance and hate (ie. this anti-Islamic rant comparing Muslims to Nazis! http://theclimatescepticsparty.blogspot.com/2015/02/stages-of-islamic-conquest-in-21st.html). This site exists to trumpet and parrot the falsehoods and frauds of anti-science flim-flammers. One example from last month is an article promoting the latest book of the notorious fossil-fuel funded "expert" Tim Ball, which starts off with a whopper: "Dr. Tim Ball ... is an environmental consultant and former climatology professor, University of Winnipeg." http://theclimatescepticsparty.blogspot.com/2015/01/agw-greatest-deception-in-history.html No matter how many times Ball and his supporters claim this, it will never become true. Ball was a professor of geography -- not climatology! Except for Luddites and anti-Islamic biggots, this web site will serve no one well.
3
This site has been attacked by climate alarmists who cannot tolerate anyone else having opinions/proofs that they are wrong.
Utile
How reliable is the ratings WOT when multiple trolls can reduce the ratings of a site because they don't like what the site says. Deleting WOT unless you fix the blatant troll control.
2
There is nothing wrong with this site. Those who say otherwise are lying because they don't like the content. Global warmists are religious fanatics who will stoop to any tactic, however unethical. Unless the staff at WOT (if there are any) start looking at contradictory ratings for particular websites, the service is useless.
5
False and misleading content based on cherry picking data and pseudo-science.
4
This site publishes information relating to climate change in a way that creates serious doubt about the likelihood of catastrophic climate change. It is my belief that the proponents of CC have organised to destroy the credibility of this site. They have used the unsafe for children label to denigrate this site for students researching CC. I find this site an excellent place to find the real news about CC. I suggest you spend some time here yourself. You will find that the media is uninformed, as a whole, and many scientists and politicians are not being truthful. Follow the money.
3
It is sad to see that some people are using the WOT rating system inappropriately, simply because they do not like the points of view about the global warming hypothesis.This type of suppression of open discussion smacks of totalitarian censorship.
1
This site is fine. WOT is being abused by the those who disagree with its content. This is going on constantly. The censors seem to be predominantly neo-Stalinists.
2
Anti-science bigotry defending economic interests of carbon industry in its effort to replicate the Venusian climate on Earth.
6
WOT allows the 'questionable' category of 'misleading claims or unethical'. This clearly applies to the nonsense and misrepresentations on this site. It isn't a science site and, like effectively all deniers, does no science but purports to present science. This is grossly misleading, as is the usual cherrypicking, misquoting, fallacies, conspiracy theories, slurs against individuals etc that make up a denier's arguments. It is unethical because the denial is predetermined, but is presented as if a rational response to the facts. The paranoiac response of some raters is similar to the paranoia and fear that underpins the site and climate change denial itself and the attempt to drag people down a certain way of thinking. But I and others are objecting because the information presented is a tissue of dangerous rubbish, nothing more.
8
Another site that is not dangerous, but is rated so...
3
People Give this site a bad rating because they don't like its politics. But just because you have a different opinion doesn't make something bad.
2
This site is not harmful to people or to computers. It simply presents views that are not compatible with the views of people who promote the notion of anthropogenic global warming (AGW). I believe in freedom of speech. The only reason that the AGW crowd dislike this site is because they do not have the data to support their claims. Therefore, they try to silence all opposition.
6
12
Vérifiez si vous avez été compromisConnectez-vous à Google pour analyser votre historique de navigation.
Se connecter avec Google
Tel que vu sur
En vous connectant, vous acceptez la collecte et l'utilisation des données telles qu'elles sont décrites dans notre site web. Conditions d'utilisation et Politique de Confidentialité
alternative-placeholder

À propos de WOT

Nous avons passé en revue plus de 2 millions de sites web et ce n'est pas fini. WOT est une extension légère conçue pour vous aider à naviguer rapidement et en toute sécurité. Il nettoie votre navigateur, l'accélère et protège vos informations privées.

C'est votre site ?

Réclamez votre site web pour accéder aux outils commerciaux de WOT et entrer en contact avec vos clients.
Réclamer ce site
Ce site utilise des cookies à des fins d'analyse et de personnalisation. En continuant, vous acceptez notre politique en matière de cookies.
Accepter