I'm not a republican... I'n not even american... But I sure would not vote for a democrat... The point of my video is that there are people from both sides who have "credentials", even if you choose to ignore one side... Plus, you didn't expect to see a five minute video with comprehensive data about it "disproving" climate change, would you? That would not be very smart... What he states is just what I just wrote: There are arguments and good people on both sides of the isle and the argument is far from over... That's it.
You are taking science info from a guy who believes the below. Let me guess, you don't believe cigarettes cause cancer either... "Similarly, he continues to smoke cigarettes in his dotage because he denies there is any link between smoking and lung cancer, a fact well proven and accepted by virtually all except a few contrarian scientists whose research was funded by the tobacco industry."
I'm going to break it down to you, so you can understand... My first post was a remark upon your weak and poor argument(something EXTREMELY COMMON FOR FOLKS ON THE LEFT AND SOMETIMES, BUT MUCH MORE RARELY ON THE RIGHT): Ad Hominems and basing the validity of some random argument exclusively on the source. In this case, you stated that just because NASA says something, it must be right. I could say that NASA is a government agency and as such, is under pressure to push the governments narrative, as it did for so many years. Or I could say that as a public agency, it is full of imbecils, many of which receiving huge salaries for doing nothing, even if there could be some serious people there. Even though this is probably true, I didn't do it, because this is the same form of weak argument that you use: Attack the author in an attempt to disguise the fact that I couldn't argue the central point defending my side. What I did by posting the video, was simply show that there are people from very serious institutions (MIT in this case), that believe the contrary to what you say is certain. I didn't say it was false or true, I just demonstrated that if is a matter of "which source said this and that"(which was your argument in the first place), than this is easy to debunk, because there are reputable sources on both sides. Then, using your typical M.O., you again showed your lack of argueing capability, by calling names and attacking the source of the video(PragerU). That was very weak, because the guy is from MIT. When confronted with that piece of information, you again searched the internet and brought about some random "he said, she said" argument again attacking the guy, as if any of this would invalidate his arguments about a completely different subject. All of this because you can't accept the fact that people question your religion and you can't face the fact that there is not enough data to prove it. So, by doing all of this, you can continue to believe your religion and avoid talking about the issue itself. The image below shows your type of arguments right there at the bottom(Ad Hominems and Name calling). If you want to convince anybody of your beliefs, you'd better climb up that pyramid... Not that I expect you to do it... I'm just saying...
So you don't think credibility of source is irrelevant, a pattern of denying settled science doesn't matter? Not saying NASA is perfect, but if you are arguing equal credentials on both sides, that's pretty weak.
And just so you know I am not a crazy left person. I believe in universal health care, abortion rights and a few other things but that's about as far as it goes. I'm ok with building a wall and I actually think Trump is right on China. I fear the far left taking over as much as the alt right. There has to be a balance. Honestly one of my biggest fears now is the right wing becoming a joke by denying climate science and backing a man who is clearly a joke and not fit for office. A full left wing AOC type takeover would be a disaster in my opinion, but I am afraid that is where we are headed if the Republicans don't cut ties with this guy soon.
This is what you said above about the people on the other side of your argument: Then I showed you and everyone else a reseacher from MIT. And the backpedaling began: First you attacked the source of the video, than (since the guy is from MIT), you attacked him with "he said, she said" arguments not related to the subject at hand and now you want to argue difference of validity between NASA and MIT? It's funny how you don't realize how pathetic this type of argueing on your part this is... Once again, I could argue that, to me, MIT, being a private Institution, has more credibility than NASA. You will certainly argue the opposite for your own reasons. And this will never end, because it is just my opinion against yours, one does note have more validity than the other. What can be said for certain is: NASA and MIT are reputable institutions, as far as I know. And they have people, which I presume have very good credentials and these people have contrary opinions on this subject. With that in mind: The issue is not settled. It can be one or the other side that is right. Which one it is, I don't know. It can be even that none of them are right. But I don't claim to know it based on what television and newspapers who profit on fearmongering vomit day in and day out to me. I simply recognize that there are qualified people on both sides and that is evidence that the issue is far from settled. That's it.
That is where we are headed. I think they'll have their hands full draining Trump's swamp so not as worried as you are. If it was Bernie winning 2016, I'd have worried, him or a surrogate in 2020, not that worried.