I agree. Direct, fact-driven critique is preferable in all cases.  I'd love to see some from the anti-AGW side that was publishable.  

I don't think anyone was talking about Nazis, but let me give you a related analogy:

The Soviet officer is insulted when I call him totalitarian, because I am equating him to a Fascist. 

I'm not at all calling you a fascist, I reply.  You have a non-fascist ideology, but your methods are totalitarian.  I can't help that the fascists are also totalitarian.  

Of course the way this thread reads someone is going to be insulted that I just called them a commie...

If you use denialist rhetoric, based on a very discrete set of social and political manipulations, then you can't get upset when people show the parallels to other categories of denialist rhetoric, charged though they may be, because while the topic of the narrative changes the language is the same.

I'd come up with an equally unpalatable denialist faction for the AGW side to be tainted with, but unfortunately I can't find any...Maybe you guys can help me out?  The "AGW Religious zealot," which several people have brought up, is a little too ludicrously ironic for me to really cling to...

It's mostly shoot-the-messenger with the 'settled science' crowd.

I think from now on I'm going to stick my head in the sand, put my fingers in my ears...

...there, that's better - no such thing as AGW

If we have some warmer summers in my few remaining years what do I care what happens next.
Suddenly I feel so much better

The seventies were the end of the last cycle, the bottom of the normal climate curve for a place as far north as Boston.  Comparing that to the tail end of the warming cycle is obviously going to leave a comparably warm state.

GW, not much hope there, Florida is fairly well balanced due to lattitude.

Also if you claim the 70's were the bottom of the curve and assumedly that today we are at the top of the curve then another 5 to 10 years of warming should convince you. Can you at least admit to that much?

I expect to still be here in another 5 to 10 years. It will be very sweet for all of you to be forced to admit that you were wrong. The question is are you man enough to do so?

Care to make a long term wager?

I don't know, I actually watch it, so I have an excuse to not be surprised.  Somehow I doubt you bother with the whole 24 hour news stuff, so haven't a clue how grossly inaccurate MSNBC is by comparison...

If investigative reporting weren't all but dead, and news outlets actually got their own news instead of almost entirely reporting from AP submissions, you'd be going somewhere.  Instead, you're just being a dick over something all of them do.  Next time, why don't you pick on something else?  Al Gore for instance, that lying shitbag has his own portable sewage system to handle the bullshit he spews.

Triple posting...

I don't need to explain it to anyone.  That I bother telling you the same thing that's already been mentioned a few dozen times in these threads is probably a sign of severe mental defect.  It's not my fault if someone else is wrong, regardless of which tree the stupid monkey decided to climb.

My claim?  You know this shit's in your own links right?  All that debunking regarding the impending ice age.  The reason it didn't have the backing of science was because the scientists were saying it was normal, cyclical climate patterns, and that we'd already reached the tail end of the cold spell and would be warming back up for roughly thirty years.

I don't gamble, feel free to remember it though.  I don't expect to die of old age before then either.  You should probably figure out what you expect me to admit though.  If it's discovered that we warmed up the poles because of CFC's, I'll have guess right.  If you're hoping they can prove anthropogenic global warming via CO2 through a green house effect, wish in one hand and...

Torquemada coulda used you, Raistlin.

Lol, the continued attempts by “sceptics” to make opposition to dishonest junk science analogues with some kind of religious dogma, is quite amusing.

i notice you also completely ignored the fact that you used mojib latif as an example of a climate scientist who doubts AGW, when in fact that assertion was completely, undeniably wrong  

haha. one of the main differences is of course that i actually hope you guys are right.

But speaking to the Guardian yesterday, Latif pushed back hard against the Mail, saying that the tabloid took his comments out of context to make an editorial statement. "It comes as a surprise to me that people would try to use my statements to try to dispute the nature of global warming. I believe in manmade global warming. I have said that if my name was not Mojib Latif it would be global warming," he said. "There is no doubt within the scientific community that we are affecting the climate, that the climate is changing and responding to our emissions of greenhouse gases."