The act of elevating these theories to the level of scientific fact, without first resolving the flaws, for the purpose of enacting political legislation that violates individual rights is what I have a problem with.
If you were not demanding that everyone alter their lives to accommodate your beliefs, I wouldn't care. You are free to believe whatever you like, your beliefs are no threat to me or my freedom. However, the actions you take based on your beliefs must not be allowed to violate any individuals rights.
While I'm speaking primarily about a belief in AGW, the above holds true for any belief that demands actions which threaten individual rights.
"Warmers" have two options, convince the "deniers" that AGW is correct so they go along with it willingly, or use force against the "deniers" in order to ensure compliance with the belief.
Rather than using facts and logic to convince people ("warmers" are quick to insist "deniers" reject facts and logic), "warmers" have resorted to fraud (e.g. hockey sticks and cherry picked data), which has been incredibly effective with the short attention span crowd but there are still some skeptics who do not share the belief.
Having attained a perceived majority through their use of fraud, the "warmers" are now looking to use the power of government to employ the use of force against the remaining "deniers" to ensure compliance with the AGW belief and it's being done under the banners of Democracy and Consensus.
Demanding that a flawed theory is correct simply because a theory with fewer flaws has yet to be offered is not a very convincing argument in favor of your theory. If you truly were interested in convincing people about the truth of your theory, acknowledge it's flaws openly and seek resolution from others who support the theory. Ignoring or sidestepping flaws in your theory only fuels skepticism and resorting to force to end the debate is thuggery.
