The difference, dummy, is that I have posted much science in the past, as have others here, but most importantly, climate scientists have published the peer reviewed science.<quoted text>
Here's a brief analyis:
100% bare assertions without any supporting argument whatsoever, including many dismissals of the science as a (laughably improbable) conspiracy theory.
0% scientific arguments; not one data point; not so much as a passing reference to a single argument for why a single finding of climate science is correct.
I am perfectly capable of supporting - with real science - every claim that I make, though denier scum are seldom worth the effort; they just fling poo and continue to deny.
The key point, DUMMY, is that denier scum posts what they consider to be solid argument against the science and IT'S PURE VAPOR! There was literally NOTHING there. Nothing!