In UK atheists considred more moral than theists.

[Angrboda]

In the first place, these were your sources.  If you're calling your own sources BS and saying we shouldn't trust the sources that you cite, then you have a fucking screw loose.  Fine.  I'll dismiss all the sources that you've provided for your claims.  There.  Now you have no support for your arguments.  Happy?

As noted, what you were debating was that science gets things wrong.  Arguing that the media gets things wrong is not what you started with.  If you want to claim that the media gets some things wrong, particularly about science, then I'd agree with you.  That is a point without consequence.  In addition, as shown by the very article you cited, the media didn't get it as wrong as you claimed.  Again, can I believe your sources or not?  From the article upon which the graph was based (which you had access to): "Even cursory review of the news media coverage of the issue reveals that, just as there was no consensus at the time among scientists, so was there also no consensus among journalists. For example, these are titles from two New York Times articles: 'Scientists ask why world climate is changing; major cooling may be ahead' (Sullivan 1975a) and 'Warming trend seen in climate; two articles counter view that cold period is due' (Sullivan 1975b). Equally juxtaposed were The Cooling (Ponte 1976), which was published the year after Hothouse Earth (Wilcox 1975)."

Additionally, Wikipedia which you quoted, which included the graph, also included the information that graph was based upon and that information was as freely available to you as it was to me (here).  The article you now think trumps your own information only looked at articles that used the term "global warming," which is not necessarily inclusive of all relevant articles. The indexing service upon which that article was based doesn't even index some of the relevant sources.  If you had bothered looking up the source article that the graph was based upon, you would have found the details about their methodology, as well as the following table which refutes your implied claim that the 1975 article was the first to cite an increase in global temperatures (with full sources in the paper). Even if your new citation were a good argument, since you didn't provide it in the context of the discussion when the issue was raised, it's rather irrelevant. You didn't dispute either the graph or its sources when I quoted them. This is just you going back and trying to cover your ass. You're a day late and a dollar short, Drich.

Your response to me is nothing more than pathetic bullshit.  If I can't trust your sources, then what is the point in you posting them?  This is just ridiculous.  I've shown you wrong in multiple ways using information that you provided and still you protest.  The obvious answer is that you're a lunatic who can't think reasonably, defends himself at all costs no matter how ridiculous, and is thoroughly irrational.  If you were just stupid, I wouldn't have much of an issue engaging with you. But your faults extend much further than that.  So, given your ridiculous response to this issue, I won't bother responding to the rest of it, as there would be no point.  I may or may not engage you constructively in the future, however in general, I am once again writing you off because you are a complete lunatic.  If you feel like putting me on ignore or not engaging with my replies, knock yourself out.  The behavior of clueless lunatics like you is of no concern to me.

Now, fuck off.