The point is though, that anyone who wanted to share or view this footage should be sectioned and locked away in a psychiatric hospital regardless.
That last bit should concentrate your rather limited mind.
Also what the fuck is wrong with your brain? No, saying a given theory is wrong is certainly not another theory. If you don't understand science and how it works, why do you even have an opinion on this?
that anthropogenic CO2 does not cause warming unlike natural CO2 which is mysteriously different
But that isn't what sceptics are saying, is it. Nice try with the good old straw man argument, which never fails a climate alarmist in need of a bullshit sentence on a website.
Science is pretty good at routing out bad results in less than 40 years and 1,700,000 scholarly publications.
Yes, science progresses one funeral at a time. 40 years seems about right to me.
A grand conspiracy theory whereby all the world's climate scientists are perpetrating a fraud
Otherwise known as "groupthink", motivated in large part by the huge amounts of tax-payer's cash available for their institutions. I think if we learned anything from the "climategate" emails, if it's not an outright fraud, it's certainly motivated a lot of questionable behaviour.
The vast bulk of publication on this issue in the literature is a pile of stinking bilge. I can think of a few sceptics who get published, such as Curry, Lindzen, Spencer, Pielke, but they are a few out of thousands of researchers on the AGW gravy train, whose careers, tenure and professorships are directly linked to their ability to suck research funds out of government for their institutions.
What they're not is peer-reviewed. This is because they're crackpots.
Oh I see. Your opinion on whether or not someone is a crackpot affects whether or not they get their ideas published, does it? Can you not spot a very small (i.e. the size of Jupiter) hole in the process, right there? Pal-review is not a guarantee of general correctness. It's a guarantee of political correctness.
We spent what? 30 years listening to denialists and waiting for them to produce some evidence for their theory
Do "denialists" have a theory? Do "denialists" get much research grant funding? Does they even get published? I get the feeling you've missed something very important across this whole debate and that its done some damage to your credibility on this issue.