Look, I presented data, citations and calculations BASED on data. You repeatedly give, as you yourself just admitted, opinion without any data, citations or calculations. All you do is give opinion, much of which has been completely debunked, some of it YEARS ago. I counter with more data, citations, etc. You repeat the same debunked opinion and talking points.

So, yes, you are right that science doesn't work this way. Science works by a comparison of data and citations. Let's do this: Cite one peer-reviewed paper that contradicts anthropogenic global warming. Can you do it? Have you ever even read a peer-reviewed article? Seriously. We really ARE talking science here, not your opinion. If you refuse to actually discuss data (a great deal of which I presented to you or referred you to) then your opinion is worthless. In science, opinion without data is not relavent. So play by the rules you set down: discuss science or get out. At the very least read what I refer you to because if you had you wouldn't have made a fool of yourself regarding the calculations I made, which were done using actual known data in the references I gave you and which I intentionally calculated to favor your opinion as much as I could...and STILL debunked your claim.

So once again: argue based on actual data and scientific information, NOT your ill-informed opinion.