> In any case, studies of ice cores have shown consistently that CO2 enrichment is a centuries delayed response to climate warming, never preceding that warming.

Aww you read a little research and didn't understand what it meant. That's cute. No those studies did NOT show what you think it showed, in fact they showed the exact opposite - ice cores are one of the strongest pieces of evidence FOR climate change theory, if they were radically disproving it - you really think thousands of scientists across thousands of disparate fields would ALL have missed that... yet somehow YOU saw it ?

>Despite CO2 rising during the 20th and early 21st Century, temperatures have risen, fallen, risen and now stabilized for more than 18 years.

This is about climate, not temperatures - climate is an AVERAGE and the average has CONSISTENTLY gone up - and there is no pause, just more lies you believe and misrepresentations of scientific results which actually prove the opposite of what you've been told they proved.

>Again, easily verifiable historical fact.
FTFY.

>The funny thing about that is an anthropogenic influence on global temperatures has only been possible since 1950

What the hell are you on about ? You think the age of industry didn't produce a fuckton of CO2 ? We're talking about an age primarily driven by steam engines -which burnt a lot of very dirty coal, as in a LOT.

The valid ones ALSO starts out with that 1/100 presenting evidence for why the currently acceptable theory is wrong.

Merely being a 1/100 doesn't make you right, in fact in the vast majority of cases it makes you a crank.
If you're 1/100 with EVIDENCE - then you won't BE 1/100 for very long.

>I was taught that the scientific method welcomed challenges to accepted beliefs - a return to that position would go a long way towards reforming belief in science.

Absolutely - but they have to be SCIENTIFIC challenges.
The difference between a sceptic and a denier is that a sceptic will always be open to changing his mind when presented with new evidence. One who sets out to disprove something because he doesn't like it, and will ignore all evidence to the contrary no matter how overwhelming is NOT a sceptic, in fact he is the OPPOSITE of a sceptic - and we call them "deniers".
The sceptics in climate science all ACCEPT the theory - because they were convinced by the absolutely overwhelming amount of evidence from thousands of unrelated scientific fields.
The deniers deny the theory despite all that evidence and despite the lack of any shred of contradictory evidence whatsoever.

Whether you're a sceptic or not isn't determined by the popularity of a theory EITHER. It is determined by, and ONLY by whether you agree with the EVIDENCE.

That's a really, really stupid thing to say since you are completely ignoring how many WOULD have died without the vaccine.
That's not hard to calculate - and it's a LOT more than 100...

Well yeah... but so will all the others, and the human race. Seems rather a high price to pay...

Pretty much everything you just said applies to an equal or greater degree to the theory of evolution. Do you also think THAT isn't science enough ?

>Make no mistake..."Climate Change" is an agenda driven science with a predetermined outcome.

Even if that was true, which it is not, that wouldn't make the results wrong or false.
Frankly everything you say is completely irrelevant. Those things matter to academics. They are details that ONLY matter to academics - they have no political or business impact whatsoever.

In terms of policy only this part matters:
Is CO2 a greenhouse gas ? We've had proof of that since the mid 19th century.
If it is, and we know it is, then it means that increasing CO2 levels = less energy leaving the earth.
Does less energy leaving mean things get hotter ?

Well there you go - either prove that the ENTIRETY of chemistry is bunk, or disprove thermodynamics and conservation of energy.
You need both those to be ENTIRELY false, not a single shred of truth to them - for global warming to be false.

Which would be ironic because it means that for global warming to be false, all the stuff the deniers are defending would have to be false too - if global warming really was false, fossil fuels would be utterly worthless since neither power plants nor internal combustion engines would WORK if we were THAT wrong about chemistry and thermodynamics.

And besides - all that stuff you said are lies, told to you by professional liars - the SAME professional liars who spent years telling you smoking was healthy and lead in the air was both natural and harmless. They are very, very good at lying, and you are very, very gullible.

Total budget for doing absolutely everything the IPCC says we ought to do about climate science ? You say "trillions of dollars" but that's just a big scary number without context.
Actual context ? It comes down to 0.02% of the global GDP over 20 years (for which the budget was calculated).

That's about 2 orders of magnitude LESS than we'll spend on fossil fuels over the same period (without counting subsidies).

Interestingly - that's the idea behind tenure, in practise it doesn't always live up to that ideal - most often by being turned into a perk for previous worker-drone stuff and of course it pisses off the rightwingers who think anybody who doesn't have the constant axe of imminent potental jobloss over their neck could not possibly do anything valuable.

ãWhat do we call "taking something you didn't pay for" again? I know there's a word for it, but I forget...

There are several. Depending on context it could be called 'public property', 'marketing material ', 'free samples', 'your birthday' or even 'copyright infringement '.

I find it odd that you only seem to know one name for it and apparently assume that all other variations are that name being euphemised. Doubly ironic when you realise that the name your thinking off actually isn't what that is called. The definition of stealing has nothing about payment anywhere in it. It's defined by lack of consent - which may or may not be gained with payment and it doesn't apply to all things. No amount of lack of consent will make copyright infringement "stealing" for example.

His actions may or may not be illegal but they sure as fuck weren't theft.

Where as the studies I've seen show a significant pay gap even for graduates (so that rules out an experience difference for either sex). That men work more hours is itself a result of a sexism society that expects them to devote more time to work and less to family while demanding and allowing the opposite of women. The fix isn't to have women work harder but to respect the role of fathers more so men work less - which should conveniently reduce unemployment because when you can't expect two men to do the job of three you need to actually hire a third. Feminists in general would agree with all I just said. Feminism however is decidedly not a homogeneous group. Eve Ensler is considered a hero by second wave feminists and hugely problematic by third wave. Third wave feminists want sex work legalised and 2nd wave fights them on it. I mostly identify as a third wave sex-positive choice respecting polyamorous feminist and I also identify as male. There is no conflict there. You say feminists don't police the crazies: perhaps but we definitely call them out. It's the most infighting movement I've ever been in. Feminists spend more time arguing with other feminists than they do anything else. For every article a feminist writes about rape three gets written attacking TERFS who consider themselves feminists and tend to respond with horrified no true Scotsmen. But we don't censor them. Anymore than we censor anybody else. We just call them out and deny them platforms. In the end a few misandrists are a tiny problem next to massive systemic misogyny. Every feminist I know would be appalled at what happened to that man. But I can imagine some of the more militant second wave feminists doing that. Luckily second wave is a dying breed. They lost the sex wars with third wavers and what's left now is just a few old battle scarred soldiers still fighting a long lost war afraid of their own irrelevance. And like every old soldier in the bar - they are loud. Loud but best ignored until death finally brings them the peace they never found in life.
My daughter is one year old. I'm a feminist because I want her to have a safer life than her mother does and true freedom to pursue her dreams and never be told "girls can't do thst'. She is not and never will be my pretty girl (despite being gorgeous ) she's my clever girl.
When she is old enough to have sex who she fucks is none of my business. I'll never threaten her partners with a shotgun. It's her body and I respect her right to exclusively choose who she shares it with. I'm a feminist because I demand everybody else respects that right too. Whether that's one or one thousand it's her choice and I don't believe anybody has the right to shame her for it.

Okay, that's more detail and a correction, duly acknowledged. Teach me to double-check numbers and not quote from memory :P

All the evidence we have suggest those things are epigenetic not genetic.

It's similar to why I refuse, as a matter of principle, to ever buy name-brand clothes.
If Calvin Klein wants to advertise his jeans on MY ass - he'll damn well pay me for the right to use my ass as advertising space, I refuse to pay HIM a premium for the privilege of LETTING him advertise on my ass.