You do not have a right to your own facts.

We have all seen (and heard, if we listen to wrong-wing radio or watch Fox "News") the complaints of climate deniars, about the way that "the debate" has been conducted, that "their" access to publication in the peer-reviewed, merit-based science journals is, well, merit-based and it's not fair that they have no merit, etc. But they're very slippery on the specifics, especially about declaring what, if anything, they recognize as "settled" which does not mean "omniscience" nor absolute certainty, but does mean "known" to within a small enough margin of uncertainty to consider it fact, like gravity. As an example of how one-sided the honest efforts to communicate clearly on this topic have been, consider the basic, indisputable arithmetic rules of computing a percentage change. The rules for computing percentage changes of concentration are not negotiable. If you won't admit to the proven facts, conversation with you is a waste of time.

COMMENT POLICY is simple.

1. Make your grammar and spelling respectable.
2. If you're asking me a question, ask your questions the smart way.
3. If you're arguing, do so civilly, and support your argument with original, authoritative sources of fact -- meaning peer reviewed science and official records -- not with op-eds. When I want Anthony Watts' opinion, or Roger Pielke, Jr's or Steve McIntyre's, I'll give it to them!