Climatologists get paid whether the world is warming or cooling, and it's not as if the politicians are doing much in regards to what the scientists are saying.

Besides, there's a lot more profit in being a mouthpiece for the fossil fuel industry.

But hey, maybe you can hire Ben Stein to narrate a documentary detailing how all the biolo... er climatologists are in an evil cabal to hide the truth.

Fortunatley, they don't, and you're still either a liar or a retard. One thing is for sure, you're beneath contempt.

There are far too many sociopaths in the world, and the Internet seems to be a perfect playground for their misanthropy.

The number of grammatical cases is irrelevant. Question: What's the difference between a grammatical case without stem changes and a postposition (opposite of a preposition? Answer: A space.

  That which is challenging, apart from stem changes, is the same thing that is challenging with helper words in general: when to use what with what. Picture a person learning English and trying to remember what to use with what. "I was scolding her.... over it? for it? about it? to it? around it?" "We were unhappy.... over it? for it? about it? to it? around it?" "She was dedicated.... over it? for it? about it? to it? around it?" And so forth. It's the same for people trying to learn which declension case to use in which context. But if the declensions are just suffixes without stem changes, then they're no different from postpositions. And often stem changes where they occur follow pretty predictable rules, often for pronunciation reasons.

Because climatologists never use field data...

Oh wait, they do, that must me you're either a liar or a retard.

I take it you think your word salad means something.

Wake me up when that happens. For now we have a galaxy that no one thinks is older than the Big Bang which looks like it's further advanced than other galaxies of its age. That's very interesting, but it has nothing to do with your claim.

Your inability to understand what physicists are saying is not the physicists' fault.

Explosions have a center. The Big Bang did not. The Big Bang was not an explosion.

Yes, the method where you come up with models with predictive power and test them against observation, as opposed to bring a pathetic loser who grape onto kookery in the vain hope that somehow it will make your intellectual laziness seem less obvious.

I spent years debating people like you, only to learn your type are too fundamentally pompous and inadequate to actually want to learn anything.

You're ignorance of cosmology is astounding. Almost as astounding as your unearned arrogance.

Read a fucking book by an actual cosmologist and get that idiotic chip off your shoulder. You're not important enough to have one.

Explosion is an awful word because of all the semantic baggage. I prefer expansion, as does the vastr bulk of cosmologists. Inflation was also coupled with a period of supercooling, making it even less like an explosion in any classical sense.

Ignoramuses become less convincing with outrage, not more.

The Big Bang wasn't an explosion; it was a rapid expansion of all space. There is no center.

Uh no, the Big Bang explains the ratios of hydrogen, helium and lithium in the observable universe. All the other elements were created when the first stars went supernova. That is rather the point of the nucleosynthesis line of evidence.