Has ‘Conservative’ Forbes Magazine Embraced the Climate Delusion? | The American Spectator |...

Editor's Note: Before you quote me using only one source, note I have Congressional Hearings and other sources here in this story not just this one. President Trump is not fighting this fight in Canada but Canadians are fighting back and Provinces are going Progressive Conservative(Republican in Canada) as part of the backlash of climate change carbon taxes and the insanity behind it.
Recently, Forbes Magazine allow the store to be published and then said that the story was not fitting in their editorial content and they only showed the first paragraph. People are calling out Forbes saying that Forbes is part of the cohort of people and organizations that are for the climate change narrative and this scares them so they won't don't want this to be published.
In the past, science used to allow all points of view. Even stuff that was considered a Crock-Pot thesis, was included for those to refute or to sustain. Forbes Magazine censored their own contributors because it did not fit the climate change agenda. I still think the climate science is a deep State world Domination by consensus. If you don't agree with them, you are mocked, called a climate denier, fired and marginalized. Why does science act this way toda?, it's because of the leftist agenda that the Earth it's going to end in 12 years if we don't get rid of fossil fuels. In the past, they predicted a ice age in 1977 that would hit about now. In the 1970's, they talked about the upcoming Ice Age. Even in the movie, The Day After Tomorrow that came in 2004, the plot was about extreme climate change and extreme global cooling. This was of course, science fiction. Now, you have certain scientists that don't like anybody to refute them and they want to push this green New Deal agenda when they know very well it's a crock of crap. The Earth is warming, but we know this is because we are in between ice ages not because of man putting out CO2 since the Industrial Revolution. The article that was banned said that the temperature increase was not as much as it was supposed to be and there's thesis was because of sunspot activity affecting the earth's climate. Talk to doctor Jufith Curry, the mother of modern climate change, I mean climate emergency formerly called global warming, so that the numbers don't add up anyway. It's sad that today's science is more like a politburo from North Korea. They don't like other points of view and they don't like to be debated.

It's life today that science is more like the Catholic Church debating Galileo. They feel that if there is an alternate explanations for global warming, they don't want this information out because it would weaken their power like the Catholic Church fearful that the Earth was not the center of the universe and that's why they threatened Galileo Galilei with burning at the stake if Galileo didn't recant. They were also excommunicated him as well just like they excommunicated dr. Judith Curry and called her a climate heretic because she claimed that the climate temperatures were not consistent and that there were too many variables involved such as the ocean acting like a capacitor and saying things like that even if we all switched over to non CO2 forms of energy, the drop in temperature LED 3/10 of 1 degrees Celsius over the next 50 years. This scares the crap out of climate change people like AOC and the science Community because they are fear mongering and wanting you to do drastic changes like a Manhattan Project Style mobilization to save the world similar to the movie 2012 where everybody gets involved to build these arks because of the upcoming apocalypse. I know I'm using a little bit of hyperbole but that's how it seems like the climate change people are as they are scared to death of anybody who debates them. Why becomes afraid and why censor the information? The whole point academic freedom is so you can be objective instead of subjective.