runner

Your quote:

"You obviously have no idea of the difference between junk science and real science. You give science a very bad name."

You say that climate science is junk science; it is a nonsense statement without any kind of proof by references. So the photos created by satellites of the break down of glaciers is junk.
You imply that NASA produces junk science; yet, they are able to send a capsule beyond Pluto.
NASA is fully behind climate science.
Russian scientists are producing junk science when they study the exploding pingos and release of methane at the Yamal Peninsular and continental self off Siberia.
Hydrologists studying the breakdown of water resources in the Andes are producing junk science?

As stated, elsewhere on Facebook and email about 6 new references in relation to climate change come my way. When visiting particular sites there are at least another 10 citations which are about climate change; where are the your beaut references that deniers can claim as being proof positive.
Between 2013 and 2014 there were 24,000 peer reviewed papers published in journals only a handful were by deniers per Powell.
Top journals such as Science and Nature publish papers by climate scientists; if climate science is junk why do top of the range journals publish their papers?

in response to an earlier comment, fairly regularly on a Sunday night at 10 pm the ABC has a religious radio program where climate science is discussed by Catholic, Uniting Church and Anglican participants