As a skeptic of the 'giant impact hypothesis' of the Moon's origin:
Collisions between planetary bodies are too complex to model.
I won't believe anything based on computer models unless they simulate the interaction of every single particle in the solar system.
"Garbage in - garbage out."
They obviously just kept tweaking the model until it gave them the result that they wanted.
I have an article from a non-scientific magazine in the 1960's that says the Moon drifted gently into orbit around the Earth.
I need to see a Mars size planet actually collide with an exact duplicate of the Earth and form an identical moon before I'll believe it.
The evidence that the Moon gently drifted into orbit around the Earth is being suppressed from the scientific journals! Fraud! Malpractice! It is all hoax to get lucrative government grant money!

... but seriously, all of the above is sarcasm.
I've posted this as a way to express my frustration with how modeling/simulations and proxy data are treated as "compelling" evidence when we are talking about astronomical science, but modeling/simulations and proxy data are all of a sudden treated as "dubious" when we're talking about climate science.
If you go to any Slashdot article about latest developments in climate science you'll find a bunch of (usually AC) comments that are almost identical to the ones above from climate change "skeptics".

Agreed. Sounds like the same reasoning Creationists use.
Premise: Scientific consensus with lots of evidence says that life has gradually changed over time into its present form, but
Premise: The preacher says Dinosaur bones were buried by the Devil to deceive you into believing in 'Evilution' because... stop asking questions you're making the Baby Jesus cry.
Conclusion: The science must be wrong.

There's actually a lot of similarities between the "skeptics" of scientific theory of Global Climate Change argue and the "skeptics" of the scientific theory of Evolution.
I see it mostly in the types of arguments that they use.

I did a quick google search for "James Eagan Holmes motive": Turns up nothing except for a few old articles saying that the police are still searching for a motive.
Has one been released?

The wars of the future will not be fought on the battlefield or at sea. They will be fought in space, or possibly on top of terahertz waves.

I found that study interesting due to the Koch Foundation connection.
I am often told (on Slashdot climate threads) that scientists will intentionally bias their results to keep that sweet, sweet, grant money flowing. Since the Koch Foundation is known to be exceptionally biased against the consensus position on the topic of climate change one would have to assume that it would be in the financial self-interest of the research group to produce the results that the Koch Foundation wants to hear.
Since the research group's actual results support the consensus position that the Earth is warming and mankind's activities are, at least partly, responsible it would seem that the evidence supporting the scientific theory of global climate change must be undeniable.

Claims that reducing our greenhouse gas emissions will "beggar the industrialised world" are nothing more than financial fearmongering.

I think it is worth while to point out that, of the 5 independent investigations that were launched as a result of the so-called "Climategate", all 5 have exonerated the Climatologists under investigation. None of the 5 were able to find any evidence of scientific malpractice. I'd call that, coupled with the endorsement of the G8 (+5) national academies of science, a pretty unequivocal vindication of the science of Global Climate Change.

Damn I wish I had saved my "C is C" joke for this comment instead.

Ayn Rand would approve. To paraphrase:
C is C.

Who the hell told Uncle Ruckus (no relation) about slashdot?

I wonder if you could build enough of these to produce an artificial rainshadow effect downwind?

Excerpt from HB0368 (the "Monkey" bill):
"(2) The teaching of some scientific subjects, including, but not limited to, biological evolution, the chemical origins of life, global warming, and human cloning, can cause controversy; and
(3) Some teachers may be unsure of the expectations concerning how they should present information on such subjects."
Source

I can't even begin to count how many times I've been told "Evolution 'skepticism' has NOTHING to do with Climate Change skepticism!"... from where I sit it's all there in black and white.