Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
DebateIsland.com is the largest online debate website globally where anyone can anonymously and easily debate online, casually or formally, while connecting with their friends and others. Users, regardless of debating skill level, can civilly debate just about anything online in a text-based online debate website that supports five easy-to-use and fun debating formats ranging from Casual, to Formalish, to Lincoln-Douglas Formal. In addition, people can improve their debating skills with the help of revolutionary artificial intelligence-powered technology on our debate website. DebateIsland is totally free and provides the best online debate experience of any debate website.
Debra AI Prediction
Post Argument Now Debate Details +
Arguments
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
Big business and governments constantly bleat on like the hypocrites they are by feigning concern for the planet, yet in the meantime in my country they have been putting cycle lanes all over the country in a ridiculous attempt to get people to cycle to work ; on a fourteen mile stretch to the city centre over here one is lucky to see more than 6 cyclists using the lanes , the same applies all over the country , we just don't use them, yet the government persists as if a country of 5 and a half million people were somehow totally responsible for global warming.
Anything to do with so called "innovations " to halt the problem are ridiculously overpriced and for a reason as this is a gravy train for the hand wringing hypocrites who feign concern for the planet while ripping of working class people.
They tell us buy electric cars yet refuse to make affordable ones , use solar energy while solar panels cost a fortune the clawback on your investment takes 20 to 30 years ,etc , etc.
I hear two faced clowns like Biden talking about his "grave concerns "for the planet while the USA is the second worst country for greenhouse emissions only beaten by China , yet we get the usual typically two faced arrogant American attitude where people like Biden lecture about his countries "concern " over these matters only because Americas appalling track record is under scrutiny.
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
However, among a lot of the media, political, or any other person with highly sought ideologies the argument often now is "it's not as bad as it is made out to be." This is such an irritating cliche I think this phrase should be added to the top banned phrases poster.
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
Well no scientist (at least the honest ones) are no lounger under the illusion that human induced climate change isn't a thing.
There still is no such thing by united state constitution as human induced climate change what there is held in united states constitution is human climate manipulation both political and scientific. These are the same scientist who do not understand the difference between natural numbers, rational numbers, and Integers yet?
(Meaning they have no clear idea or udnerstanding of time to establish time frames)
By the way the use of chemical ice-melting agents are the mathematical greatest contributor to climate manipulation currently taking place globally it also happens to be the greatest contributor to debt as it destroys federal highways and drainage infostructure faster than it can be repaired.
How does a Legal United State held above law create all women equal?
By calling them Presadera instead of a women, lady, Female, or Queen.
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
It's time to go.........
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
Provided Global faulty engineering along with negligent mathematics is not to really blame and climate manipulation is just the means to transfer blame elsewhere?
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
If you are willing to completely do away with the ideas of liberalism and make the government into a utopia builder using human bones as material, you would do well to set an example and send yourself to jail due to contradicting the ideas on climate of the previous group of the White House occupants.
But, of course, as all authoritarians, it is not objectivity and consistency you seek, but just elimination of the people who you personally dislike and do not want to hear from. Luckily for all of us (including you), most political systems nowadays feature prevention mechanisms not allowing people like this to exercise their ideas through political means.
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
Your cowardly thumbs down to my arguments demonstrate clearly you're only here to preach, at least attempt to debate instead of just preaching.
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
These do not constitute scientific literature. If you are familiar with a paper published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal that establishes the "five million deaths per year caused by climate change", feel free to link it here.
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
I read your first link. Here's what it actually says:-
Over five million extra deaths each year could be due to abnormal hot and cold extremes caused by the ongoing climate crisis.
"Could be" means it is possible, and nothing more than that. It's speculation.
If you read the whole article, then at the bottom one of the authors of the data contradicts the idea that climate change is causing 5 million deaths per year and actually argues that it may presently be reducing temperature related deaths:-
Based on the analysis, Mr Guo said global warming may “slightly reduce the number of temperature-related deaths, largely because of the lessening in cold-related mortality, however in the long-term, climate change is expected to increase the mortality burden because hot-related mortality would be continuing to increase (sic).”
Hence, this article absolutely does not evidence your claim that 5 million people are dying each year because of climate change.
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
A greater concern is understatement the number of deaths could be higher.
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
Here is the paper the article you linked references:
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanplh/article/PIIS2542-5196(21)00081-4/fulltext
In the "Findings" section of the abstract we read the following:
The first number is what you were referencing. Notice how dramatically different it is from your claim: the paper states that ~5 million deaths per year were associated with non-optimal temperatures. What you, on the other hand, stated was this:
You see, these 5 million deaths are your initial dataset, and in order to determine how many of those are caused by (rather than associated with) non-optimal temperatures, and how many occurrences of those non-optimal temperatures are caused by climate change, and (something that you left unspoken) how much of that climate change is caused by human activity, you have to perform rigorous data analysis and apply multiple cuts. That may easily reduce the number of deaths to a few dozen, and the confidence interval is going to be much-much wider, possibly crossing the zero point.
But why bother with these technicalities, right? Someone said that millions of people die from climate change, and that sounds pretty scary... As someone you upvoted here said, "It's time to STOP thinking and START acting.". Might as well be the motto.
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
I'm what now? I literally illustrated to you that your own link doesn't support your claim. You're making bogus claims.
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
The way to do that isn't by making wildly speculative claims and pretending you're stating facts.
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
All of your posts are appeals to authority, so if you don't understand what the articles say that you're linking then you shouldn't be linking them.
Nobody is denying or using fancy reasoning. They are attacking your claim that 5 million people are dying per year as a direct result of manmade climate change, because it isn't supported by the literature. You're using fear-based reasoning and then accusing other people of myths when they criticise the lack of evidential support for your argument.
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
That people die from excess heat is very well documented. That five million people a year die from excess heat is a dubious hypothesis, and that five million people a year die from excess heat caused by climate change caused by human activity is a claim the absurdity of which is out of this world. "Cherry picking fallacy"? What I did was just the most basic consideration of the reasoning in question, and it fell flat on its face. If I were to seriously and thoroughly critique your argument, the analysis and the verdict would be much-much more damning.
The claim that "overall climate change does more harm than good" is not even testable, for "harm" and "good" are fundamentally subjective categories. You can establish certain metrics for them, but you cannot make such claims objectively.
Were all of this just your personal confusion, with you genuinely wanting to learn about these things, I would be very gentle with you. But you want to jail people for disagreeing with your extremely dubious reasoning, and in my estimation a proper response to your reasoning should be much-much harsher. I am being far nicer than anyone should be here.
Before calling someone a "denier" and calling for jailing them, make sure that you do not make the most elementary mistakes in establishing the alleged truth that the person denies.
Outstanding. You just momentarily shrunk your estimate of the number of human casualties by a factor of 30+ and did not even blink - and said that focusing on the number is missing the point. The same article (which does not contain a reference to the paper it allegedly draws its conclusions from and does not mention the authors' names; I could not find the original paper and have to presume that it does not exist) has the following piece:
The five million again... Sound familiar? Wait, what is this word: "illnesses"? That is not the same as "deaths", correct?
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
Then you shouldn't be making wild claims which you can't support or defend. That plays right into the hands of climate change deniers, who can then argue that, since you were wrong about one thing, you're therefore wrong about everything.
No, a more conservative estimate is that you don't know. It's patently ridiculous to make claims like these because you have no comparison model (i.e. a world in which climate change isn't occurring).
It was your claim. You were the one focused on the number.
You cannot accurately quantify how many, if any, deaths are being caused by manmade climate change. For starters, none of the studies you have linked have collected any data about how many lives are being saved by higher temperatures. Meaning warmer climates might be responsible for 150,000 deaths in one part of the world, while they are simultaneously responsible for saving 300,000 lives in other (i.e. colder) parts of the world. You don't even know if short-term climate fluctuations have any relationship to human activity at all.
Your appeals to fear are fallacious and misguided.
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
No it isn't the courtier's reply. I'm not accusing you of lacking the skills or knowledge required to have a valid opinion. I'm pointing out the factual reality that all of your posts are link drops which you attempt to use to validate an initial bunk and/or spurious claim. This is a perfect example, because you begin:-
Then dump a link which, when read, makes it abundantly clear that your claim is wrong:-
The courtier's reply is a type of informal fallacy, coined by American biologist PZ Myers, in which a respondent to criticism claims that the critic lacks sufficient knowledge, credentials, or training to pose any sort of criticism
Even the link itself illustrates that there is disagreement about whether the courtier's reply is an actual fallacy, or whether referring to it is the fallacy:-
Critics of the idea that the courtier's reply is a real fallacy have called it the "Myers shuffle", implying calling someone out for an alleged courtier's reply is a kind of rhetorical dodge or trick.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Courtier%27s_reply
Every one of your posts follows the exact same formula:-
A. Make bunk and/or spurious claim.
B. Drop link.
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
And I've had numerous people tell me I need to be a structural engineer before I can point out the self-evident fact that the WTC buildings were brought down in a controlled demolition. Then when I show them testimony from structural engineers they tell me they are fringe nutcases who don't understand structural engineering. I'm extremely familiar with the courtier's reply.
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
Your got to remember that Adolf here has a habit of dictating to people and make straw men by making I agree with into you making a claim then accusing you of apeeling to authority when you didn't. Just wait until you get some of his real dishonest tricks like refusing to reply when he has been put into a corner or just being abusive to distract from the fact that he tries to make people believe things that he never backs. Look at the 911 baloney he put out and not once did he make an assertion but toed every one along by posting false links and videos. When you debate some one who is so exstream you debate some one who will use exstream dishonest ways.
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
Barnie, when I don't reply to your posts it's because they aren't legible and don't in any way reflect factual reality. Either one of these things is a deal-breaker, and the combination even more so. You're falsely accusing me of dishonesty, while just this morning you claimed you were on the Harvard debate team. Your trash posts are only worth reading for their comedy value.
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
No Im not.
Dishonesty 1
You deliberately misled and misquoted because he was not allowed to give evidence at the hearing because was a lunatic extremist and committed suicide on a straight road...he evidenced baloney to a brick wall.
Dishonesty 2
That is nothing to do with a simulation of a plane hitting a tower and also you were elusive because you refused to say whether you back such a test.
Dishonesty 3
That is generic and does not apply to the argument and again you refused to say so or not. And you failed to mention that it was not the pancake theory alone it was in combination with the steel structure melting from high temperature burning fuel.
Dishonesty 4
The only one that said ti was someone who was told by an exstreamist toilet cleaner that there was a bomb and she wouldn't know any way. Not one of the others said there was a bomb but said it sounded like a bomb. Also you posted a video of an explosion low down on the building that super imposed over the actual 911 video. That is more than dishonest it is total lies and deceiving
Dishonesty 5
It was not. It was news coverage that a confessed exstreamist Corbett took and doctored and edited to make every thing completely out of context. And the subject was Rodriguez who is also an anti government exstreamist who cleaned toilets and learned how to deceive people in his spare time so he could make money out of it. It was as legit as a peace of fools gold and only a total fool would believe such a trash.
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
Dishonesty 6
https://www.islamtimes.org/en/article/283184/new-studies-conspiracy-theorists-sane-government-dupes-crazy-hostile
That is one of many links that you posted that are made by militants, untrue and totally not credible in the least bit.
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
You did avoid the question and you did not demonstrate one thing. The doctored video was pointed out to you many times that no body said there were bombs and you failed to list anyone who said there were bombs in the building. Instead you evaded the question and run the guilt trip so as to divert away from you. Very dishonest. And a lie since you avoided every single question since. For example do you believe that there were bombs in the building. You were asked that question 4 times and avoided it 4 times. The list goes on and on and were not even talking about your trick of being abusive and talking down to every one. You are the most dishonest lying controlling deceptive extreme person on this site and I have given more than enough proof to prove it.
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
It isn't made by militants you ignorant Islamophobic bigot. The data set referenced in the link is from a UK study conducted at the University of Kent, which was published in the Frontiers in Psychology journal:-
Results
Of the 2174 comments collected, 1459 were coded as conspiracist and 715 as conventionalist.
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00409/full
Which is precisely what the original link says:-
The most recent study was published on July 8th by psychologists Michael J. Wood and Karen M. Douglas of the University of Kent (UK). Entitled “What about Building 7? A social psychological study of online discussion of 9/11 conspiracy theories,” the study compared “conspiracist” (pro-conspiracy theory) and “conventionalist” (anti-conspiracy) comments at news websites.
The authors were surprised to discover that it is now more conventional to leave so-called conspiracist comments than conventionalist ones: “Of the 2174 comments collected, 1459 were coded as conspiracist and 715 as conventionalist.” In other words, among people who comment on news articles, those who disbelieve government accounts of such events as 9/11 and the JFK assassination outnumber believers by more than two to one. That means it is the pro-conspiracy commenters who are expressing what is now the conventional wisdom, while the anti-conspiracy commenters are becoming a small, beleaguered minority.
https://www.islamtimes.org/en/article/283184/new-studies-conspiracy-theorists-sane-government-dupes-crazy-hostile
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
It is not an "impossible expectation" that you are able to support the claims you make. If you can't support the claims you make, then don't make them. Your arguments are just so absurd. This is literally what arguing with you is like:-
You: If there was lightning storm today in Paris, 10,000 people would have been killed.
Me: But there's no way for you to know that because there was no lightning storm.
You: This is impossible expectations.
You're utterly ridiculous. Arguing with you is like trying to reason with a brick wall.
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
You can keep on being abusive and talking down to people as much as you want and wriggle out of things out of context as you do. Every one has there opinion and every one likes an argument no matter how far feched or right or wrong but using dishonesty and lying is another thing. The fact is that you are a dishonest and a con descending manipulating exsteamist bully boy and it is proven weather you like it or not but I dont give a toss because your the one who has to live with it and deal with it.
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
I'm not being abusive. You completely disregarded a valid argument for the sole reason that it was published by the Islam Times, which you baselessly accused of militancy. That's bigotry. It's the actual textbook definition of bigotry. Hence, you are factually an ignorant Islamophobic bigot.
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
I truly wonder whether you can actually read plain English. Nobody is saying impossible expectations are not real. What I am trying to explain is that you are grossly and continuously misapplying concepts like "unreasonable expectations" to situations where they are not even remotely applicable. I haven't made any expectations of you or anybody else. I haven't asked you to do a thing. I simply explained that you can't prove a claim if the validity of your claim depends upon a comparative model that doesn't exist. How is that difficult for you to grasp?
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
What a total load of trash. You're doing the exact same thing I criticised you for not even two hours ago.
A. Make bunk and/or spurious claim.
B. Drop link.
You make trash claims and then try to support them with namedrops and/or appeals to authority which, upon closer scrutiny, turn out to be nothing more than conjecture. The article you linked from the Harvard Gazette uses the word "estimate" seven times, not to mention that it's a study on air pollution, not "fossil fuel pollution". Fossil fuels are only one contributor to air pollution.
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
Here is a worldwide list of causes of death in 2019:-
https://ourworldindata.org/causes-of-death
Nowhere on that list is "fossil fuel pollution."
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
- A group of scientists publish a scientific article.
- Some journalist misrepresents the findings of the article.
- Scientists disagree with the misrepresentation.
- Scientists go to jail for the disagreement.
Wonderful world that would be. The alternative interpretation of your suggestions would be that everyone who actually denies science should be jailed - which includes you, given what has happened in this thread. How many years in jail did you have in mind, 2 perhaps? Let us increase it by a factor of 30, to 60 years. What is it I hear, an objection? Come on, you focus too much on numbers.The article you cited in support of your "five million deaths per year" claim had a direct link to the source paper which you could read in its entirety right there. Furthermore, the origin of the claim is in the abstract, and abstracts in scientific papers are always open to the public. You could literally click on the link and a few seconds later verify that the claim in the paper differs from the claim in the article.
Look, buddy, something being "easier" does not justify this kind of blunders. "Easy" and "true" are two very different things. If you want to jail people because their work is too hard for you to grasp, then you are a royal jackass.
On a general note, this happens every single time someone accuses me of being a "science denier" with respect to climate. I say, "Okay, let us look at the actual scientific literature". Most opponents back out right here and then under various excuses. The few who do agree to engage in a scientific dispute just cite random papers and say, "These papers support my claims". I read the papers, find the relevant passages that never align with the claims and point it out - and then they just call me a "denier" again and quit.
I have yet to run into anyone who I could have a sensible discussion on climate science with - yet there is no shortage of people willing to make outrageous claims and ridicule others for "not accepting science", even as they have no idea whatsoever what the science actually is.
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra