Idiots like you (unpardoned, here) are of the mind that scrutiny to the average opinion must equate with some sort of mental deficiency, and that because you believe it and you know all your (rational) friends believe it, it must be true.

Also, because you equate the lack of scientific consensus on Global Warming (which there is, even if you sleep with pictures of Al Gore and his Hockey Stick graph, not everyone does: Models are debatable, end of story) with Holocaust deniers? This is continued idiocy: One is debatable abstract unrealized scientific projection, the other is documented historical consensus with no value to contestation. You are guilty of the same crimes you suggest of others in your tirade: Denial of scientific evidence (What’s that, physics book? Read you? I couldn’t possibly do that. Oh, childrens biology book, your statements on enhanced plant growth in the presence of higher levels of CO2 are just so silly. What’s that, statistics? You have provided some correlation between vaccinations and autism? Perhaps we should ignore you and fail to explore this further..?)

It is funny that you ironically use the term flat-earther, because n fact you display more of the traits; you are the flat-earther by the spirit of the phrase:
1) You hold to the general consensus viewpoint
2) You do not consider that contrasting viewpoints could in fact be true or should be subjected to scrutiny

Perhaps a new term should be coined for your “conspiracy muddlers,” something like “people that don’t agree with me.”

The Earth WAS flat in the minds of the majority until it was proven otherwise. The sky WAS warming.. I mean, falling until all the other little chickens wised up that Chicken Little mayyy have overestimated the problem a bit. The cause for two skyscrapers to fall down WAS being hit by planes, right up until the third one fell down with no plane in sight. Good job flat-earther.. way to tow that line and avoid thinking about the issues altogether!

Just to summarize:

Your list is muddled, because it contains several issues that are the matter of current debate and are unresolved, several matters for which resolution is philosophically impossible and several matters for which there is no value in debate whatsoever or no confirming evidence from which to provide assertive points. I see no validity to the framework of the argument provided: It is a piece of propaganda using persuasive argument to support your viewpoints and as such hold just as much validity to critical thinking as any other such piece: None.

A further lesson: Stop listening to the explanations provided by your conspiracy theorists. What you do, like most people that are simple in the head, is to listen to the conclusions given (For strong example: A conspiracy theorist might question the official explanation to 9/11 events, and profer the solution that Bush’s administration had planes flown into the twin towers.) and use your own emotional response to it to discredit the only matter of worth in any theory, which are the questions and data (if the conspiracy theorist in the example above has questioned the official explanation and provided you with the questions and supporting data without the conclusion, then YOU would be the idiot for not giving them due consideration. As it is, because of the wild nature of the conclusion given, the question is ignored.) Then, you have a nebulous idea that something has been disproven, when in fact, there has been ZERO useful critical thinking about the matter.

Lizard People => Politicians are emotional beings and use the primitive reptilian regions of their brains to make decisions

Intelligent Design => We humans could design life and shape the surface structures on another planet

Climate Change => It is entirely possible to change the climate on Earth or terriform other planets to suit our needs (Antarctica Sea Ice -is indeed- growing at a faster pace than the Arctic Sea Ice is declining….perhaps due to the artificial van allen belts created during project the high altitude atomic tests of Project Argus in that region blocking sunlight over the years)

Hybrids => This can indeed be done by humans with life on another planet or even with other life on Earth….all kinds of genetic experiments are possible, some of them could enhance our own genes giving us superhuman strength or perhaps the reflexes of a cat.

Telepathy => Are we on the verge of implanting microchips into the vocal, audio, visual, taste, and smell nerves of people that are attacheable to radio wave antennas which can communicate thoughts and feelings between people? Perhaps that might be the future of communications.

Antigravity and Flying Saucers => Perhaps the supercollider research will reveal the existance of “antimass” with the disintegration of micro-black holes …. with gravitation, likes attract and opposites repell (that runs contrary to electromagnetism which likes repell and opposites attract), perhaps that explains some of the phenomina related to the mysteries of dark mass and dark energy, and black hole jets of (anti)mass.

Time Travel => Perhaps negative mu (magnetic permeability) materials cause light, and therefore messages, to travel faster than the speed of light in a vacuum. The effect on the observer is that time goes in reverse, that the doppler shift is inverted.

…etc, a lot of neat ideas come from studying the conspiracies, it’s really all about taking off our Black thinking caps and putting on our Green and Blue thinking caps.

Surely, you can tell the difference between that and the scientific theory of evolution.

Against what might i ask?
a Theory?
Evolution is a theory so if you’re going to list creationism as a theory i request you also list evolution.

As for the “vast body” of peer-reviewed literature, if you are referring to literature that debates political narratives, it seems somewhat disingenuous to refer to it as “peer-reviewed,” which is a term usually applicable to scientific papers. Political analysis is generally considered to be subjective. If, however, you are referring to scientific evidence refuting climate change (thank you for the term update, by the way), then I hardly think that “vast body” is even remotely accurate. My phrasing is not unfairly dismissive of “ongoing scientific debates” since the overwhelming view of scientists (and their organizations) is that climate change (due to global warming) is occurring and that a major cause is human activity. Those who choose to ignore scientific evidence (or choose to make up their own to suit their fancy) do so at the risk of being labeled “deniers.”

…which leads us to your statement about creationism, which is a wholesale denial of science and rationality. Please note that I am referring to “Young Earth Creationism” when I make that statement. There is no scientific (or naturalistic, if you prefer) basis for it. To make such a bold claim as creationists make, one would think they would have a plethora of scientific evidence to back up their position, but that is not the case. Not only is there no evidence, but supporters will frequently take bits of scientific data, whether actual or fabricated, and attempt to use it to justify their position… always without success.

Surely, if I refuse to accept a position wholly unsupported by any credible evidence, one wouldn’t call it “fundamentalist.” …yet you say “scientific fundamentalism,” using it to imply a form of dogmatic extremism. Science, however, is about as far from a fundamentalist mindset as you can get… constantly questioning, challenging, and updating its conclusions based on newly discovered evidence. It’s the best method we have for learning about our world in any kind of practical way.