What, you mean without the same tired rhetoric with endless pictures of Richard Simmons, clowns, midgets and ham sandwiches? Seems like you'd be pretty much censored right down to nothing then!
Do you really think a bolting argument advanced, say, by Peter Puget (a pseudonym) has any more or less validity than one by say Darryl Cramer or Tony Bentley (both presumably real names)? I don't and I don't see why you would even begin to think they do.
I'm glad you left, although it looks like the Kevbone moron quotient down there has dumbed you down to American levels...
Obviously you never looked at the Gripped bulletin board while you were in Canada.
Right, so Bill O'Reilly's opinion on climate change is as valid as any climatologist with an advanced degree.
No, but not because of who they are - rather by how well their opinion agrees with the observed evidence and predictions from best generation of current climate science models.
The assumption that an argument or position advanced has greater or lesser validity depending on the identity of the person who advances it is a common logical fallacy.