Highly fallacious text: it stacks appeal to popularity, ad hominem, false dilemma and anecdotal reasoning to push climate denial without engaging with any actual evidence.
Everyone with common sense knows that climate change is a hoax invented to control us. If you disagree, it's because the mainstream media has brainwashed you. Either we reject the green agenda completely, or we lose our entire way of life. Dr. Carter, who has a PhD from MIT, said it on a podcast, so it's proven beyond doubt. I personally lived through three of the coldest winters of my life last decade, so global warming clearly isn't real. Climate scientists who support emissions limits are all funded by green-energy lobbies, so their conclusions are worthless. People have always panicked about the weather — every generation thinks the end is near, and they have always been wrong. How can you still trust experts who keep lying about temperature data?
"Everyone with common sense knows that climate change is a hoax invented to control us."
Claims a controversial scientific position is settled because 'everyone with common sense' agrees with it. Appeal to popularity — consensus isn't evidence, and it ignores actual climate science.
"If you disagree, it's because the mainstream media has brainwashed you."
Instead of addressing the opposing position, attacks dissenters as 'brainwashed' victims of the media. Discredits the person to avoid the argument.
"Either we reject the green agenda completely, or we lose our entire way of life."
Frames the debate as a binary choice between rejecting all climate policy and losing one's way of life. Ignores the wide spectrum of policy positions between those extremes.
"Dr. Carter, who has a PhD from MIT, said it on a podcast, so it's proven beyond doubt."
Uses one PhD's podcast comment as if it settled a scientific question. Appeal to authority — a single credential doesn't substitute for peer-reviewed evidence and the consensus of climatologists.
"I personally lived through three of the coldest winters of my life last decade, so global warming clearly isn't real."
Generalizes from a personal experience of three cold winters to disprove a global, multi-decade temperature trend. Anecdotal evidence — local weather isn't climate.
"Climate scientists who support emissions limits are all funded by green-energy lobbies, so their conclusions are worthless."
Dismisses climate scientists' conclusions by their alleged funding source rather than their methodology or data. Genetic fallacy — the origin of an argument doesn't determine its validity.
"People have always panicked about the weather — every generation thinks the end is near, and they have always been wrong."
Uses the historical fact that some predictions have been wrong to imply all current concerns must be wrong too. Appeal to tradition + hasty generalization, but weakly applied.
"How can you still trust experts who keep lying about temperature data?"
Loaded question: presupposes that the experts 'keep lying about temperature data' — an unproven claim baked into the wording.