massively undervalued/ no precedent, page-3

It takes a peculiar mind set to argue that using the word "denialist" suppresses your free speech when you are engaging in free speech. Since you are denying climate change you are by definition a denialist. Presumably you would be just as incensed if young were called a "climate science negativist". The real absurdity of your position is that instead of producing evidence to show that the studies of sea temperatures, glacier retreat etc are flawed or bogus, you retreat to claiming others are denying you the right to take a minority view about what the multi-layered data of climate sciences are telling us.

This has happened many times before. Almost all the medical practitioners of Europe refused to accept that small, invisible biological life forms caused disease. They hounded out the few who did, but gradually the evidence became over-whelming and no one but extreme eccentrics and people with psychotic disorders disagrees with medical science. The Big Bang also seemed an absurd proposition even to eminent astronomers like Fred Hoyle. There are now very few astronomers who deny the Big Bang concept which has moved from being theory to observable fact.

It could be that emotionally you are simply not prepared to look at the evidence. In saying that I am not suggesting that you are a stupid person, but for reasons unknown to me something blocks you from accepting a more complex view of the heat transfer and capture process between hydrocarbon gases, radiant energy, water and land. Common sense might also suggest to you that if 2 billion people burn 30 billion barrels of oil a year, 7 billion tons of coal etc it would add heat trapping gases to the atmosphere. That is not a very hard concept to understand. You certainly can't deny that we are releasing trapped carbon at very rapid rate.