Skip to main content

View Diary: Climate SOS: Deniers, Rejecters and Skeptics, Oh My! (52 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Nietzsche said it best (0+ / 0-)

    "The best way to destroy a cause is by becoming it's most excessive advocate".

    You threaten to HR comments you don't like and dismiss it as "big oil propaganda".  Great way to engage in dialogue.

    Actually, I came to my thoughts entirely on my own as a layman.  And I already acknowledged that those who pooh pooh AGW theory also have vested interests in doing so.

    This guy does a far better job than you by being tactful and respectful to those who are AGW skeptics:

    Anyway, HR away.  Enjoy living in your bubble.

    •  I'm following you (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      samanthab, Dave in Northridge

      This is a reality-based community, and if you will both ignore established science and post denialist talking points I will HR.  I'm not going to HOS, just for those things

      There is room for debate on this site.  I'm not a big fan of carbon taxes; I think giving enough incentive to solar will take care of the problem, with the way the technology is advancing.  Once solar is cheaper energy source than fossil fuels everywhere, and that day is already here in many places in the US, then it's game over for Big Oil and Big Coal.  We just have to take down those fuckers and let science do its thing.

      But in the meantime, anyone who posts that the science is still out on manmade global warming is the same in my eyes as someone who posts favorably about the science behind The Bell Curve.

      •  Request for clarification. If I post a link to a (0+ / 0-)

        published paper that argues for a sensitivity distribution that is lower than the IPCC consensus, or that shows a drought frequency and severity reconstruction that undermines Hansen's analysis, or an analysis of MWP and LIA temperatures that disagrees with Mann et al, am I committing an HRable sin?

        Where are we, now that we need us most?

        by Frank Knarf on Fri Aug 24, 2012 at 07:31:15 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  yes (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Calamity Jean

          In my book.  Tobacco science doesn't have a place here.  GTFO.

          •  Your position is a religious rather than a (0+ / 0-)

            scientific one.  You treat rational disagreement as heresy.  If you are not familiar with Thomas Kuhn or any of the other philosophers and historians of science, I suggest you become so in order to avoid much future embarrassment.

            Where are we, now that we need us most?

            by Frank Knarf on Fri Aug 24, 2012 at 08:46:47 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  I treat discredited RW talking points (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              mightymouse

              as discredited RW talking points.  They aren't welcome here.  I've been arguing for the last ten years with denialists and done more than my share of debating their "facts".  I'm tired now.  If you want to get into arcane scientific debate, go have fun with the longsuffering scientists over at

              http://www.realclimate.org

              Here at dKos, global warming is real and it's manmade.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site