Skeptical Science has a great APP to answer the climate change deniers. You can type in the climate change deniers nonsense and get the scientific rebuttal or answer, see below.

Explaining climate change science & rebutting global warming misinformation

Global warming is real and human-caused. It is leading to large-scale climate change. Under the guise of climate "skepticism", the public is bombarded with misinformation that casts doubt on the reality of human-caused global warming. This website gets skeptical about global warming "skepticism".

Our mission is simple: debunk climate misinformation by presenting peer-reviewed science and explaining the techniques of science denial, discourses of climate delay, and climate solutions denial.

[skepticalscience.com]

Get the Skeptical Science App:

iPhone: [skepticalscience.com]?

Android: [skepticalscience.com]?

Your fear of facts is Breathtaking...not in a good way.

Problems with the post:

1. "Science is a process where theories are subjected to criticism."

This is a very narrow, stilted view of science. The author seems not to even understand that a scientific theory is an an explanation that unifies and make sense of many disparate FACTS. The facts were determined to indeed be facts through rigorous testing of hypotheses and a process of peer review. A theory is a something that is formulated in a later stage of the process, after much examination and testing. None of this implies that a theory cannot be modified or even discarded. On the contrary: science always leaves that possibility open (unlike dogmatic religion).

2. The author seems obsessed with only tree rings, and completely unaware that the temperature data from antiquity comes from many other sources as well, including varves (lake bottom deposits), changes in sea level, and written records going back thousands of years, recording the days when the first cherry blossoms bloomed, when when the first swallows appeared, when the first snow fell, when the river first froze and when the ice broke up and the river became navigable again. It turns out that these very different sources of data are mutually supporting, and together paint a very detailed portrait of the past climate.

3. The difference in damages assessed on the two defendants was based on the difference in their levels if malice and the amounts of harm they caused. That's the way it works. Also note that Steyn did not retain a lawyer, but represented himself in court. And he exhibited hostility to the American judicial system, continued malice towards the plaintiff, and was unrepentant for his defamation.

4. "Jury's [sic] are bought"

To blithely accuse the jury, without evidence, of corruption is grossly irresponsible. Given the source of this calumny, we are, sadly, not surprised by it.