Is co2science.org Safe?

Science-based information about the CO2 debate. Science is never settled. Consensus is entirely political and has no place in science. The negative reviews of this site are political and certainly have no basis in science.

Helpful

Vexen_Crabtree

Anti-science nonsense produced and funded by ExxonMobil and Peabody Energy (a large coal mining company) but which pretends to be presenting unbiased views. Idso (who runs co2science.org) worked for Peabody Energy before founding this site. ExxonMobil and Peabody have spent millions producing fake anti-climate-science content for the web. Do not use this website.

Helpful

JohnBSay

Those negatively rating this site are expressing religious and idelogical preferences. Frankly given that the planet is voting against them this is especially disturbing. Science is not what you wish it was, but what conforms to reality.

Helpful

Daniel.Chilton

This is an alt-science site with one point of view, and its against real climate science. It fools those who wish to be fooled.

jal64

8 years ago

This site is obviously being attacked for political purposes. Sites that present peer reviewed papers that counter "received wisdom" are negatively rated for no other reason than an attempt to minimize the damage to scarifying dogma. So what if a site may receive funding from politically incorrect sources. TRUE SCIENCE is about the message, not the messenger. I would also rate this site SAFE for children. Scientific truth should never be considered harmful.

Helpful

uconn94

8 years ago

Site is full of references of accepted papers. It appears that this site is victimized by climate change politics in attempt to squash opposing views. It is a shame that WOT is an accomplice to this. See for yourself: http://www.co2science.org/subject/r/summaries/rwpeurope.php I would be interested in any evidence that tarnishes this site with your negative rating. Where is YOUR evidence to support your rating?

mnmusmnmus

Inconvenient facts that check out as accurate

Infopackrat

Again WOT is being abused. This site gives voice to the thousands of scientists around the world who don't drink the cool-aid of man-made global warming. Their ideas are just as valid as the other side. They don't get papers published not because of the science but because it's not what governments want. There is no TRUE consensus on global warming. WOT is not supposed to be used to stop people from looking at controversial subjects! I wonder what other politically incorrect organisation WOT is giving a bad rating to?

Cedders

Obviously very selective. This is the nearest thing the editors put out to a declaration of conflict of interests: http://www.co2science.org/about/position/funding.php. But it's contradicted by this: *****

Helpful

Ing61

Seems to be a fairly objective site, making data available for others to draw their own conclusions.

Aloysius Kling Sr

I have checked the information and have found them trust worthy with facts to back up the data presented.

Billdsh

Negative ratings are clearly organized by the environmentalists to neutralize the site. All science information. Seems reasonably balanced.

duvel71

WOT is not intended to register disagreement with a point of view. It is intended to warn of security threats, privacy concerns and commercial spam. Users who downrated this site cannot be trusted on WOT.

contulmmiv2

WOT has been taken over by 'global warmist' ideologues. One cannot check a site of opposing views without being punched in the face by their stupidity via WOT's warnings. Admins should take notice and take action: WOT is on the way of becoming yet another 'politically correct' fundamentalist den.

ghob

Fact based studies of the impact of carbon dioxide in the environment, including its benefits to plant growth. It's called S C I E N C E ! The WoT rating is totally misleading.

DocManager

Reliable information to ded an important debate. WOT ratings likely generated by those with differing viewpoints for political reasons.

KevinKia

WOT needs to do something about this. WOT negative ratings are being used as a political tool to discredit valid arguments. It's difficult to recognize when WOT can't be trusted and reduces WOT's usefulness. Maybe negative posts could be required to comment on something that is, in this case, "unethical". Quoting news articles that point out divergence from your own view, or quoting science papers is not unethical. Luckily WOT still seems quite helpful in pointing out real trouble on the web such as phishing and malware. It would be nice to have a separate WOT just for that. We don't need more "opinions", we need safety.

I.am.Alan