Ad Hominem attack topped by an association fallacy.

I stated that I have no problem with vaccines. But you persist in trying to associate me with that.

Your "Righteousness" is clearly showing.

Because I believe the state of mainstream climate science is suffering from strong confirmation bias and also from bad science, which has been demonstrated over and over, as well as a peer review process that has been hijacked, you seek to discredit me by associating me with a group that based their information on 1 bad paper.

The differences are numeros, namely there are allot more than 1 scientists who are skeptical on maintream alarmist climate science and their theories (except for a few more vocal crack pots) are sound.

It is easy to pigeon whole all dissenting voices and paint us all like ignorant hicks, however it only shows how worried the alarmists are of engaging in debates. Much easier to smear than it is to actually win with arguments.

Enjoy the air up there on your high horse.

Your cute.

Nice smear campaign.

You see, about the truth (from your other post), when you have it, its all you need.
However it seems slandering others and hiding from public debates is the biggest arguments on the side that wants us all to think its the end of the world, unless we hand over our money.

"This has nothing to do with the scientific method. This is about protecting debate in the public sphere and I do think it protects it. Consider if you were a climate scientist with a completely impeccable record. How willing would you be to make some high profile statements on your research, knowing that powerful media interests would immediately start dragging your name through the mud and trying to turn you into a pariah and a magnet for crazies?"

Indeed. Now do you understand how its so hard for those who are skeptical of mainstream climate science to come out of the closet?

Even when it isn't true, they are called shills for the oil industry, slandered, dragged through the mud and marginalized.

If you had a career and a family, would you take that risk?

Climate science isn't being politicized, it has been from the early 1980's.

Indeed. Either that, or they are furiously researching on green public relations sites like DeSmogBlog for ways to attack what I said... or attack me.

Are you talking about alarmists, when they slander scientists that try to publish papers that they dont agree with?
When they call them shills, liars and deniers?

Nothing against vaccines, GMO's, or Darwin.

Next.

And I quite like your ad hominem attacks.

It is indeed hilarious that you would dismiss climateaudit because of your preconceived bias, instead of look at the article, and original study and make up your own mind about the facts.

You're spouting nonsense propaganda and slandering a website in a thread about defamation and slander.

CLIMATEaudit is a blog about climate science (be it skeptical or not) it has nothing to do with Big Tobacco and you know it. There are no BIG tobacco articles on that site.

Calling a Canadian science site a GOP shill, just shows your lack of intelligence and integrity. There is no such thing as the GOP in Canada.

Now, are you going to be a reasonable person and do your own research before spouting your hatred again? Or are you going to go back to sks, or desmogblog to look up a talking point to throw back at me?

Are you trying to associate me to the anti-vaccine movement?

tsk tsk. You really are desperate.

The Video in question:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Jail for deniers:
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/p...
http://dailycaller.com/2014/03...

Murder:
Comment by Bluecloud
https://twitter.com/RichardTol...
There are many more... some directly from Greenpeace. But I'll let you do your own research.

Death penalty:
https://tallbloke.wordpress.co...

This article was about slander and defamation of character. (which BTW, I did not read the offending articles, but trust that the Canadian judge punished the NP rightfully. I know how much mud slinging is done on both sides, and especially the NP).

So my comments are pretty much on topic. Especially in reply to the anonymous cowards post.

If you have nothing to say about my claims, then I think you should have just shut up. Because it makes you look petty and desperate.

Unless you agree with all the despicable things I attribute to (some) extremists in the alarmist camps.
In that case, you have no defence, so you resorted to insulting me (just like the national post) instead of discussing the actual claims I made.

Bye.

Hottest by 0.02C (Globally) with an error possibility of about 0.1C.

Also the only truly global data sets (satellites) do not rank it as the hottest.

And finally, with a temperature difference of barely 0.05 on average for the last 18 years, the warming is basically nonexistent.

Hi there.

Anything else to say than to insult me?

I havent seen the original articles.

However I agree with your statement. Published false statements against a specific person should be punished.

Too bad it doesnt happen with alarmist media or scientists slander sceptical scientists, call them shills or call for their murder in well respected newspapers.

Nice generalisation there.

It isnt because your bias makes you refuse to read sceptical scientific discussions that they dont exist.
Stop reading media crap or rebuttals by propaganda sites and, just for your educational purposes, read some scientific sceptical sites and make up your own mind.

How the hell are you supposed to tell if you are being told the truth if you will not read the dissenting voices?
Again, DO NOT (except after the fact) read the rebutal blogosphere first. Go to the source, then research others opinions. Or else all you are reading is crapot propaganda with confirmation bias.

so goes for the other way around.

Instead of SKS
Try WUWT, judithcurry and climateaudit