Why, exactly, would you consider the papers that don't talk about a topic when considering whether there is a consensus of support for that topic or not? If you were seeking to see if a dog would make a good pet, how many books about orangutans would you read? Also, the Cook paper also clearly states what percentage of the papers took a position on climate change (32.6%) in the abstract.

According to your logic, we can lower the support level for any topic by simply including more papers that don't take a position on the topic. It doesn't even have to be climate change. Why not gravity, the round-earth hypothesis, or religion. Hey, if we include enough irrelevant papers we can get the consensus level down to 0.0001% for anything.

Following methodology of Legates (geographer), Soon (astrophysicist), Briggs (statistician), Monckton (public speaker), I can prove that gravity is a lie since only 0.01% of papers in the category of science specifically affirm that the force is real and affecting us. That's what they did to get only a 0.3% endorsement of the consensus view of climate change, they included papers that have nothing to do with global climate change to dilute the results. The Cook paper found that 97% of the papers that took a position favoured the consensus view.

Because, as we all know, an ideologically Libertarian political "think tank" funded by gas and coal owners is clearly the most reliable source of information on the effects of pollution released by the gas and coal industries and whether that pollution requires government intervention. There is absolutely no bias, no politics and no conflict of interest there.

Frankly, it seems par for the course that you rarely understand what you are reading when it concerns climate change.

See this? This is why you come off as a lunatic nutjob with a paranoid obsession about feminists.

You have repeatedly lied and distorted the truth, and when confronted with your paranoid delusional twisting of facts, you focus on one tiny aspect of the commentary so you can ignore the substance of the argument. It is not me who is lying here, friend. It is you. Frankly, it looks like you need serious psychiatric help. Go get some.

It is if the person you're pointing out is not a hate-monger, isn't it?

You're like that guy who denounced Tinky-Winky for being gay. Delusional and convinced of your righteous ways.

Sure I am. Go ahead and tell yourself whatever it takes to justify your actions and to dismiss any and all criticism.

The no picture, no name, not an aged account is as indicative of harassment as it is of fraud. The things that were written were sufficent to land the writer in jail. Presuming the writer is actually harassing her, and smart enough to realize that he or she is breaking the law, and doesn't want to go to jail, then a new "burner" account would probably be their best choice.

He can't, the stuff he claims is false, and he's referring to the Lego video part 2 on the site linked from the article description. I watched the video and can recognize enough of the real video through his darkly twisted lense.

I watched that video because you mentioned it and you appear to have failed to understand the central point. It's not "commercials depicting fathers playing with their sons are bad", it's only having "commercials depicting fathers playing with their sons" alienates girls from playing with Lego by emphasizing that it is a "boy" toy. Additionally, it not "that products should not depict testosterone inspired activity", it's that Lego shifted their commericals from creative activity which has larger cross-gender appeal to boy-centered play themes like blowing stuff up, which again, alienates girls from playing with Lego because that type of play is generally les appealing to girls. In both cases, it is not the advertising that is the problem, it's the fact that there is no counterbalancing advertising. There are no mother and son, father and daughter or mother and daughter commericals, and there is no marketing focus on play that appeals to be both boys and girls or focus on play that specifically apeals to girls. She is not critcising the toy or even the company really, except that she is pointing out that for two decades, they made marketing campaigns aimed at boys and only boys.

And for that, you appear to believe that she and her family deserve to be threatened with rape, torture and execution...

Indeed, it was Ayn Rand who viewed labor as something only a very small number of heroic, good-looking, and rich people wanted to do. Her theory was that the rest of humanity needs to be threatened with starvation or they would only steal from their betters.