Your ad-hoc definition of science invented to exclude psychology fails due to the fact that you evidently know nothing about psychology, dictionaries, English majors and pretty much everything else you wrote about.

I know I shouldn't feed the climate trolls, but here are some obvious facts
All climate scientists are skeptics.
Not all skeptics are climate scientists.
There are many politically powerful pseudo-skeptics in the field (AKA deniers) who deliberately misinform via various front groups and no-think tanks.
The only way to find the "truth" in all this is to stop talking in hyperbole and start studying the science of climate. Personally I've had an interest in the subject for almost 30yrs, very interesting stuff. It's based on the "hard sciences" and is an excellent example of how "the big picture" of Science has practically rewritten our understanding of our planet in my own lifetime. I was literally born before the term Earth sciences was coined.

Agree, plagiarism is a type of fraud so it might reflect badly on the person depending on how rigidly one defines the principle of "fraud", it is not criminal fraud. Also many people here are software developers, sure we can write code from scratch but if you do it for a living it's basically our job to plagiarise code from each other.

Full disclosure: About 45yrs ago I reworded the Beatle's "Eleanor Rigby" for a high school poetry assignment, my teacher was so impressed she wrote "has a talent for poetry" on my final report card. ;)

You have a right to use a road but you need a license to drive a vehicle on it. In other words, driving is a privilege, using a public road is a right. There are limits on how you can use the road as a non driver which generally start when you infringe on other people's rights to a safe journey or when the activity is unreasonably detrimental to the road.

If all parties agree, an iron clad contract can be altered or shredded, same deal with the constitution. If this were not the case, if for some reason the constitution was 'read only' you wouldn't have all those amendments such as free speech. Aside from that, anyone who genuinely believes the perfect constitution can even be written is a barking mad authoritarian with zero imagination.

Truth is, hardly any self-proclaimed AGW 'sceptic' is actually a sceptic. Most of them are True Believers, repeating oft-debunked nonsense in hope of making it stick.

I think Obama (naively) believed that congress was staffed by reasonable people who wanted to work together for the betterment of society. He "reached across the isle", they took one step back and he fell flat on his face in the middle. Neither side has rushed to help him to his feet.

A court jester is the wise fool who speaks truth to power and lives to tell the tale. Stewart is not a journalist, but he is the best court jester to come out of the US since Charlie Chaplin, Colbert is a close second.

Yes, that's the main difference. Here in Oz the commercial channels still have about 10-15minutes of that style at the beginning of a "news hour". Back in the day our version of Walter was a guy called Eric Pearce, and sure a respected anchor-man has some clout as to what stories go to air but these days the networks won't allow "the talent" to gain that sort of clout in the first place.

Unless of course... you use the 8.1 preview.

Great idea, balance global warming with a global "pea souper", what could possibly go wrong. Just repeal all the clean air laws around the globe. The resulting particulate pollution will more or less balance the warming, might need to set off a few volcanoes to even it up. Just one small snag, you will also require an entirely new form of aqua/agriculture that thrives on acid rain, the GM boffins have got that in the bag, right?.

Comprehension tip: "It proposes allowing private citizens to sue someone else for violating existing cruelty laws". AFAIK, there's no law against neutering animals. Now I'm sure there's a handful of people out there demanding such laws but the rest of us want domestic animals properly controlled, so you can stop fretting about PETA because even crusty old "geenies" like me view them as little more than a public nuisance.

Thing is, that run of failed predictions never happened. People who believe it did have abandoned critical thinking and put their faith in propaganda. However your claim is so obviously false that it is useless as real propaganda so I can only assume you're trolling.,

...burning hydrocarbon is the energy source where the biggest part of the cost is payed for by society. Here, fixed that for ya!

Many eurotrash countries have a stiff government finger in the HV transmission soup, which means their investments might be based on something other than "cheapest stuff that probably won't cause global meltdown in next quarter". I live in Denmark and have had one 10 minutes power cut in the last 5 years.