I use fact based sources/reality. You use biased, belief based sources (see above), sources paid off by fossil fuel companies (see above), anti-science sites, conspiracy sites etc. It's why you're off most of the time. I don't see that changing.
------------------------------
This is basically you, posting articles from scientists paid off by fossil fuel companies:
"To find scientists willing to make this claim, Philip Morris turned to consultants for the chemical industry. The experts Philip Morris hired work for firms whose scientists regularly contend in medical journals, courtrooms, and regulatory arenas that their clients’ chemical products pose little or no health risks to the public."
The irony in this arrangement is that the tobacco industry pioneered such tactics. “The tobacco industry wrote the playbook for the rest of the industries,” said Matt Myers, president of the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids. “Whether it’s the chemical industry,
whether its climate change … You see it in industry after industry.”
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/05/low-tar-cigarettes/481116/
"Noted Climate Scientist"
If this was back in the day and we were talking about tobacco, you would be posting articles from scientists paid off by Big Tobacco saying smoking isn't harmful.