In this task, you are given a public comment from online platforms. You are expected to classify the comment into two classes: obscene and non-obscene. A comment is obscene if it is considered offensive to the public sense of decency, for example because it too obviously relates to sex or contains language regarded as taboo in polite usage.
Q: Comment: Bill, you're better than this. Ask yourself two questions.

1.) If AGW is not real and we only think it's real because of an airtight scientific conspiracy against the truth, why wouldn't a fossil fuel company fund its own research to reveal the truth? Exxon or BP could spend tens of millions to fund and publicize such research, and they have a LOT to lose unless AGW is shown to be a hoax. Hell, they spend more than that funding denial!

2.) GW theory is important to a wide range of scientific disciplines--atmospheric physics and chemistry, paleontology, oceanography, climatology, the study of glaciers and ice, even the study of other planets. The scientists who showed that atmospheric CO2 was not, in fact, the Earth's' thermostat, would be the Newton or Einstein of our age. She or he would redefine our knowledge of the universe. That is one hell of an inducement to do the research, especially if AGW theory is so clearly a fraud.

Why hasn't someone done it and become immortal?
A:
Non-obscene