Is This a Verifiable Claim?

Nobody has backed up their insulting assertions about me with an example because they can't. Most if not all of them are leftists who blindly believe global warming propaganda and can't accept they have been misled by the corporate news media and even PBS' Nova.
Politics should not be influencing science, but many of the trolls that insulted me are too cowardly to challenge me on the facts. Those that have tried got their egos bruised and failed miserably. It is not surprising that those partisan creatures resent me to the point of obsession. Why else would one of them create this thread that is all about me?
Ad hominem attacks are a sign of weakness and failure. Those partisan creatures are showing how badly they handle failure.

Originally posted by @metal-brain

Politics should not be influencing science,

Then why are you trying to push your anti-science anti-global-warming political agenda and propaganda onto this science fourum?

Just to be clear I am not a partisan creature. I am very pro science in every way. My stance on global warming is based on science and facts. Anybody can watch the nova episode and see it contains false information. This is not a mere opinion, but an undeniable fact. Those partisan creatures who say otherwise are anti-science hypocrites.

If anybody has the courage to confront me with facts go ahead. Those that do not are afraid of the facts, contrary to science and are therefore hypocrites.

The post that was quoted here has been removed

Yes. You already know you should not pay attention to metal brain. And yet you do.

Originally posted by @humy
Then why are you trying to push your anti-science anti-global-warming political agenda and propaganda onto this science fourum?

The ice caps are melting. There is no mystery here.

Originally posted by @metal-brain
Just to be clear I am not a partisan creature. I am very pro science in every way. My stance on global warming is based on science and facts. Anybody can watch the nova episode and see it contains false information. This is not a mere opinion, but an undeniable fact. Those partisan creatures who say otherwise are anti-science hypocrites.

If anybody h ...[text shortened]... ad. Those that do not are afraid of the facts, contrary to science and are therefore hypocrites.

In case you hadn't noticed, scientific dialogue goes through peer-reviewed journal articles, conferences etc. and not popular-scientific television programs, which invariably contain some errors or simplifications. Since you are not an active scientist working in a related field, nor an expert on the relevant literature, your view cannot be "based on science and facts."

Originally posted by @apathist
The ice caps are melting. There is no mystery here.

You are uninformed. All that proves is there is global warming, not man made global warming. This warming trend started over 300 years ago from natural causes after the little ice age.

It is not enough to prove there is warming. That is obvious and not surprising that the trend is continuing. What is not obvious is how much is natural and how much is man made.

The corporate news media has conditioned people into thinking global warming and man made global warming are the same thing. They are not. When they say global warming they want you to ASSUME that means man made so you do what you just did, think that glaciers melting is all the proof needed for man to be the cause. FALSE ASSUMPTION!

Originally posted by @kazetnagorra
In case you hadn't noticed, scientific dialogue goes through peer-reviewed journal articles, conferences etc. and not popular-scientific television programs, which invariably contain some errors or simplifications. Since you are not an active scientist working in a related field, nor an expert on the relevant literature, your view cannot be "based on science and facts."

HA!
So are you saying it doesn't matter if PBS' Nova ignores scientific dialog or that it is regretful that Nova contains the same false information that Al Gore put in the inconvenient truth?

I have news for ya pal, most people don't get their opinions from journal articles. That is why over 90% of all people think temps lag behind CO2 when it is the other way around.

https://principia-scientific.org/atmospheric-carbon-dioxide-lags-temperature-the-proof/

My view is based on science and facts. If you are so sure it is not then prove it if you can. Facts are facts, nobody has a monopoly on them. A fact is not determined by the person stating it and your point is irrelevant since you are not a climate scientist. By your own criteria nobody should listen to you because your view is not based on science and facts.

Instead of making arguments that make no sense go ahead and review the proof in the link above and all of my peers here reading can dispute something they think is not factual. When you fail don't resort to ad hominem attacks. It isn't my fault you are wrong and are in denial of the science.

The post that was quoted here has been removed

Short on facts. You noticed this, right?

Originally posted by @apathist
Short on facts. You noticed this, right?

What specific facts are you requesting? Ask and ye shall receive.

Originally posted by @metal-brain
HA!
So are you saying it doesn't matter if PBS' Nova ignores scientific dialog or that it is regretful that Nova contains the same false information that Al Gore put in the inconvenient truth?

I have news for ya pal, most people don't get their opinions from journal articles. That is why over 90% of all people think temps lag behind CO2 when it is t ...[text shortened]... resort to ad hominem attacks. It isn't my fault you are wrong and are in denial of the science.

I'm saying that PBS broadcasts aren't part of "science" in any meaningful sense, and neither is Al Gore's film. If you think there is something wrong with the science, find errors in the peer reviewed literature.

Again, you can't claim to have a view "based on science" if you're not a scientist. The best you can do as a layman is find out what the scientific consensus is, perhaps grasp some simplified explanation/justification thereof, and agree or disagree with it. I tend to agree with it since recent history shows that the scientific method tends to be more accurate than pseudoscientific explanations.

Originally posted by @kazetnagorra
I'm saying that PBS broadcasts aren't part of "science" in any meaningful sense, and neither is Al Gore's film. If you think there is something wrong with the science, find errors in the peer reviewed literature.

Again, you can't claim to have a view "based on science" if you're not a scientist. The best you can do as a layman is find out what the s ...[text shortened]... y shows that the scientific method tends to be more accurate than pseudoscientific explanations.

You are being dishonest. Nova is a science program, at least they claim to be. They have recently exposed themselves into being propagandists which apparently you agree with since you are distancing yourself from Nova as much as you can.

"Again, you can't claim to have a view "based on science" if you're not a scientist."

Now you are showing your hypocrisy. You have no more respect for climate scientists than any layman skeptic. You have repeatedly disregarded Fred Singer as a credible scientist and you have even falsely claimed he was not a climate scientist at all at one point.

Now you have the nerve to bring up climate consensus when we have debated that many times before and you could prove nothing. Furthermore, I posted Fred Singer's article "Climate Consensus Con Game" for you and all others on this forum to read and scrutinize and all of you failed to find a valid consensus to back up the myth you claimed to be true.

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2014/02/climate_consensus_con_game.html

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2016/01/climate_change_the_burden_of_proof.html

Pseudoscientific explanations? Now you are outright lying. You are welcome to attempt to prove that embarrassingly false assertion if you want to. You will fail miserably!

Originally posted by @metal-brain
You are being dishonest. Nova is a science program, at least they claim to be. They have recently exposed themselves into being propagandists which apparently you agree with since you are distancing yourself from Nova as much as you can.

You conveniently forgot to mention the things the Nova program got right about climate change. Furthermore, KazetNagorra is very clearly correct. Getting your information from popular television shows and politically-biased news websites is not how scientists form objective opinions about the validity of claims. You need to dig a lot deeper than you're willing to. When prompted, you conveniently ignore the work and and any data that goes against your opinion, focusing only on those results that muddy the waters a bit. That's where you lose your objectivity and credibility. The big picture is obvious.

YouTube

My kids taught me this. The thing is it works by showing a way.