Change that to "selectively using facts" and I would agree with the bearded guy 100%. Change it to "twisting facts" and it would be an accurate reflection of reality.
The whole problem with the "skeptics" movement is that they don't seem to realise that if you want to draw the right conclusion you have to use *all* the facts - not just the ones you "like". So on the one hand we have climate scientists pulling together data from thousands of weather stations, satellites, oceanic buoys, painstaking analysis of tree rings, fossil coral, pollen, stalactites using state-of-the-art equipment, and applying it to analyses of the Earth system using our best current understanding of radiative physics, fluid dynamics and thermodynamics, to draw conclusions about the range of likely outcomes.
On the other, we have people pointing to... a cold week in Adelaide, a 15-20 year stretch of the surface temperature graph that looks vaguely like a "pause", a bunch of Arctic air being sucked down over the US, a handful of octogenarians saying they haven't noticed any sea level change at their favourite search beach.
It's f###ing retarded how one-sided the scientific argument is. The majority of self-proclaimed "skeptics" wouldn't know true skepticism if it bit them.
