Two replies to my Reddit censor

This is what passes for debate on Reddit today:

"Do all of you believe in this right wing climate skepticism garbage?"

My replies (apparently censored from Reddit, so posted here)

You "ask" a rhetorical question with a defamation embedded in it:

"Do all of you believe in this right wing climate skepticism garbage?"

Don't pretend you're here to have a reasonable discussion. You're already throwing logical fallacies and defamations left and right as soon as you began.

• It is not a "belief". It is a method, the scientific method.
• It is not "right wing" - it is rationalist, as opposed to, say, anti-rationalist
• "skepticism" is not garbage. It is the foundational method of reasoning for the civilization you currently enjoy the fruits of.

Try learning something useful such as how to discuss ideas without throwing insults at people left, right and centre. I suggest you get a book on logical fallacies. Learn them. Then try to apply what you learnt by discussing something online without recourse to any fallacies.

My reply to his reply

No such thing as proving a scientific hypothesis. But there's disproof; which in scientific circles is called refutation or falsification.

Climate models are not like engineering models - thought I'd make the point before you claim it. An engineering model must be validated against something - even if it's only the bridge built from it! In contrast, the atmospheric model of the greenhouse gas effect has been around 53 years, since 1967. Yet you will find no serious scientific papers, written by its supporters, discussing rigorous tests and validations. The model fails all possible tests I know. So it is a junk model. Yet people like you - who never even bothered to read it - never even tried to falsify it - claim it is "settled science". You're with the superstitious and the reactionaries. I'm with progress. I tire of hearing the anti-science arguments such as "settled science" put forward to support broken models upon which trillions of dollars of policy spending rides.

Summary

Do not let the left call themselves progressive. Take the term back. Explain to the left, on their own terms, why they are reactionary and regressive.