You say I put too much faith in peer review, but here you are putting all your faith in denialist blogs

Noise? Wouldn't that just depend on which manufacturer packages the AMD GPU?

The language of physics is math, and to get a handle on quantum mechanics you need math and lots of it. Unfortunately the general population is mostly mathematically illiterate (along with many slashdot readers), so quantum mechanics will always be meaningless to them.

Or perhaps complex fields require complex terminology, but I guess that doesn't fit with the "Scientists make it look hard to fool us" type viewpoint.

and thus your initial reasoning (about it being the kernel and thus the name of the OS) is nonsensical and what it is really about for you is "It's called Linux because most call it Linux".

Naturally I assume you of course call android by the name Linux as well.

Firstly, if someone has legitimate scientific criticisms there is peer review for a reason; random speculation on a blog is worth little, particularly considering it's quote-mining from an unspecified "leaked" source without context (the blog is clearly trying to make a mountain out of a molehill).

Climatology is not solely about global warming, so that is whether the neutral option comes in.

There's a "don't know" option as well. Of those people that ventured a discernible opinion 97% agree that global warming is man made.

That comment you link to is nonsensical, it claims there wasn't a "I do know: This paper has nothing to say about AGW." option, and yet there was, the neutral option. This is just pedantry to try and pick holes into something ideologically unpleasant. The majority of climatologists don't agree with denialists; get over it.

And where did you learn about these purported predictions? Generally denialists seem to base their opinions of scientists from the newspapers, the same newspapers with a history of picking minority opinions and aggrandizing them to "Scientists think that ..." type messages. Now, show evidence of a dire prediction published in a peer reviewed journal that has not come to fruition; put up or shut up.

at some point 97% of climatologists didn't believe in global warming, and now they do. Did you see what I did there.

Everyone knows white pudding is where it's at

So what if journalists don't talk about other sources than CO2, they have been factored in by the actual scientists, and that's what matters. Whether or not they have good PR is besides the point.

"In my eyes ...". Science isn't subjective, the opinion of your eyes is worth nothing.