Look him up and get back to me.

Why exactly do you think everyone collectively celebrated when Henry Kissinger died?

\> Implying the feds wouldn't support an authoritarian movement that gives them more power You shouldn't have been banned, but you should definitely be called an idiot.

You can nitpick the actual size of the consensus if you want, I genuinely do not care, climate change is still going to be real, and it's still what's supported by the preponderance of all evidence, and it's still going to be affected by 200 years of rampant human industrialization, and it's still going to be our responsibility as a species to deal with it. It'll be true tomorrow, the next day, the day after that, and going on ad infinitum. Since I've already blown your denialism cope disguised as a research paper out of the water, I won't repeat myself, especially since it's clear you didn't scrutinize it in the least for yourself. Oh, and, your attempt at sarcasm as a defense mechanism whenever you get challenged? *That's* why I called you a condescending fuckhole. Because of *how you treat people,* not because of what you think. I was attacking your behavior, not your politics.

Wrong. There's a bunch of headlines talking about emails that all equate to giant nothing burgers that you took at face value because it was convenient for your political agenda for them to be true.

Do you have anything of actual relevance to say?

Oh right, I left something out. \*ahem\* And if you do it on our property, we have the right to tell you to leave.

Ah, I see why people don't believe you. And it has nothing to do with politics. Here, let me explain: You're a condescending fuckhole that is actively unpleasant to interact with and so nobody wants to listen to you. Now that that's out of the way: Your *article* (this is not the scientific paper, this is an article about a paper in a website run by an ex weather man who is ***nakedly*** biased against anthropogenic climate change as a theory, and as such, this is, as you termed it, *an activist site*) is probably bullshit too. Here's why: **"A tweet in President Obama’s name had assumed that the earlier, flawed paper, by John Cook and others, showed 97% endorsement of the notion that climate change is dangerous:** **“Ninety-seven percent of scientists agree: #climate change is real, man-made and dangerous.” \[Emphasis added\]** ... **"Only 41 out of the 11,944 published climate papers Cook examined explicitly stated that Man caused most of the warming since 1950. Cook himself had flagged just 64 papers as explicitly supporting that consensus, but 23 of the 64 had not in fact supported it."** The article changes the statistic it is measuring several times in succession in order to conflate one data point with another. Which is it? Are we measuring what percentage of scientists think climate change is dangerous, or what percentage think it's man-made? And then it throws up even more smoke up our collective ass by further asserting, and I quote Dr. Soon here: **“There has been no global warming for almost 17 years."** The paper mentioned is from 2013, so that gives us a range of 1996-2013, where [NASA](https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/) charts a steady rise in global surface temperature, which means this man has just flat out *lied,* and if he's willing to lie once... and if his colleagues are willing to let that lie into their joint paper... It calls the credibility of all of them into serious question. As for bragging that it's an accepted, peer-reviewed paper; That doesn't actually mean much. It just means it got accepted into *a* journal and got published. And the standards for accepting that are all over the place. Even the big names like *Science* and *Nature* have inadvertently published outright falsified papers from time to time. The point of journals is not to verify the science, it's to *publish* the science (and generate ad revenue by doing so). Verification comes from other scientific outfits repeating the same study, and, surprise surprise, this paper referenced by Legates et al has barely received any traction or review whatsoever. Unsurprising, considering the current state of replication science, and less surprising still considering the glaring flaws and agenda bias weighing it down. Most reputable scientists know not to waste their time digging in the mud with the cranks. Also, you do realize, that in order to assert that the paper Legates et al are rebutting was heavily politicized, you logically have to admit that *this one could also be heavily politicized,* right? And don't even try to pretend that there aren't both political and economic incentives to deny climate change - and not just anthropogenic climate change, but *the entire concept of earth's climate changing in our modern day at all.* Just don't waste my time, or yours, doing that.

Joining NATO is voluntary. The countries near Russia join NATO specifically to protect themselves against Russia. Ukraine didn't, and now here we are. And don't even get me started with the bullshit 'Russia had to invade Ukraine cus it was gonna join NATO', because * Countries with active territorial disputes cannot join NATO, and Russia has been occupying parts of Ukraine since 2014 * If that *was* the objective, they failed, because their invasion caused two other countries to join NATO, and now almost every NATO country is engaging in significant rearmament. NATO is stronger than ever, *specifically because Russia decided to be the bully NATO was created to defend against.*

And we all have a right to tell you you're wrong, tell you why, and call you a fuckhead when you refuse to learn.

And how are they doing right now?

Not all Republicans are neonazis. But for some reason they don't have a problem sharing the table with them.

And you are doing everything in your power to dodge actually producing a single scrap of information that would corroborate your assertions.

Wow, a single entire research paper. ... Where from, who wrote it, why did they write it, where did they get their evidence, and has anyone corroborated their conclusions?

Was? You mean it changed in response to new information and evidence?