Blue, blue.

On a thread on the frontpage article about the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report, I tried to warn a commentator that they were engaged with an entity who is not interested in learning about science and is thus best dismissed. My comment got replied to by said entity, so here's some feedback.

Facts don't "get in the way" of my comments. They back up my comments.
I'm fairly certain that the commentator thinks this. Most people think they're not posting fictional things. But in the year 2013, there are ways of checking "facts". Doing so shows that this commentator's "facts" are erroneous.

You, on the other hand, have been full of "BIG OIL!!! EVIL REPUBLICANS!!! CLIMATE DENIERS!!!" blathering since the this article was posted.
I think this is the "royal you", since my primary comments on that article mentioned no such things.
"Big oil" has been working for about 30 years to undermine the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming.
"Evil Republicans" have been working for about 20 years to make the arguments that human carbon emissions have no effect on climate, or have only beneficial effects on climate, or that developed countries have the right to emit carbon regardless of if carbon has negative effects. The first two of these arguments are wrong, whereas the third is merely irresponsible.
"Climate deniers" is a libelous term for people who are ignorant of the facts.
All three of these groups have contributed to sociopolitical inaction in response to overwhelming scientific evidence that current human activities are detrimental to the long-term continuation of human civilizations. So they do get blathered about, since, honestly, they are working for short term benefits over long term survival.

I get it, you're a psycho-religious global warming cultist with an unbalanced mind and complete ignorance of basic science. Don't try and project your stupid on everyone else. Some of us actually study the data and know what we're talking about; and there hasn't been an ice core yet that's whined about "evil republicans". But of course, that's in the real world, which I'm not sure you're living in.
Ice cores do show that slight warming of the planet (driven by Milankovitch cycles) releases carbon into the atmosphere, which in turn sustains warming during interglacial periods. So ice cores directly refute at least one of the arguments used by "evil republicans": that human emissions are incapable of changing climate.
There's some other sentences in that paragraph but I'm not sure how to respond to eight insults in four sentences. Climate scientists sometimes get actual death threats so whenever I feel bad about using a pseudonym online, I realize that it's better than the alternative.