Denier Whackiness: How updating a video spells the End of the World as We Know It

How it all started....

Kevin C at SkepticalScience has got WUWT in an uproar.  Kevin C wrote an article about recent surface temperatures and said he was going to update a video.  I believe this is the video in question, which Kevin wants to update to reflect the latest science:

This got poor old Bob Tisdale going.  Bob wrote a whining article about how SkepticalScience is still not taking any notice of his ENSO magic.  He's ignored everything that Kevin wrote, although he expressed some amazement that a science writer would want to update a video to reflect the latest scientific thinking.

I've spent enough time on Bob already and will just once more imagine his little leprechauns magically heating the oceans.  Bob writes about "naturally created warm water" as if it's different to any other ocean water.  Bob's a tad weird.

Who'd have thought -  an animated graphic spells the end the world...

What really drew my attention was Ferd Berple's comment. (The same Ferd Berple.)  He thinks a skeptical science video is the same as a peer-reviewed paper.

Read how smoothly Ferd makes the transition from updating a video on SkepticalScience.com through to withdrawal of Einstein's scientific papers, through to rewriting the Laws of the Universe and finally a Religious Inquisition (with capital letters).

ferd berple starts by quoting Bob Tisdale quoting SkepticalScience and says:
May 22, 2013 at 8:17 am  However the conclusions of the current video do not represent a consensus in the peer-reviewed results, and thus we will be withdrawing the current version
============
ferd berple continues:...So, following this logic, any paper that doesn’t follow the consensus should be withdrawn?

Did Einstein’s papers in the early 1900′s follow the consensus? Didn’t they break with the consensus of the day? On this basis, shouldn’t Einstein’s papers have been withdrawn?

How can science advance without papers that break with the consensus? If the consensus view is that the earth is the center of the universe and the sun circles the earth, how can anyone publish a paper that says otherwise?

Skeptical Science, this is my question to you. How, if the consensus is that the earth is the center of the universe and the sun and planets circle the earth, how can anyone publish anything different if only papers that match the consensus are allowed?

How is this any different than the days of the Religious Inquisition, when it was forbidden to publish any paper that was contrary to consensus? How can Science advance when it is slave to Consensus?

Galileo before the Holy Office - Joseph-Nicolas Robert-Fleury

Oh, Kevin C - What Have You Done?

Oh, Kevin C - you really started something.  Poor Ferd Berple thinks if you update your video it will sound the death knell for quantum physics, astronomy, all theories of the universe and all the religions in the world.  (Come on, let me call Poe! Could ferd berple be a fake denier?)