Comments on: Last call to vote for Weblog Awards

By: Mike Lorrey

Mike Lorrey — Fri, 09 Jan 2009 21:32:39 +0000

It appears rather that criticizing AGW is gaining more credence among valid scientists, while Mann, the IPCC (which has been confronted by thousands of scientists denouncing WB1 as bad science), Al Gore, and the rest are more of a cargo cult of pseudoscience being used to camouflage a political agenda that originated in the Club of Rome.

Google “solar cycle 25″ and “Dalton Minimum” for more evidence about whats really going on…

By: Wm. L. Hyde

Wm. L. Hyde — Sat, 10 Nov 2007 18:57:22 +0000

I came to this site, among others) because Steve urged us to investigate the other contenders to see if anything caught our interests. Since I have begun my investigation I have been assaulted by the word “Denier” plus some even more obscene (unwilling to repeat them here) and inscrutable references (what is a “Freeper” for instance, or a “Concern Troll”?) These were directed at my Climate Audit friends continually. I find being called a “Denier” extremely offensive, and qualifying your name calling as harmless does not stop me from feeling offended. And claiming “debating points to raise sympathy”! Please! I’m finding my journey of exploration to be a waste of time, so I guess I’ll head back to the sites that treat people with respect.
Cheers…..theoldhogger

By: Brian

Brian — Sat, 10 Nov 2007 17:28:28 +0000

“Have a great weekend.” Thank you – same to you.

By: Jerry

Jerry — Sat, 10 Nov 2007 15:32:59 +0000

Brian,

I have no interest in pursuing this further. It’s rather off-topic–”Last call to vote for Weblog Awards–anyway. Have a great weekend!

By: Brian

Brian — Sat, 10 Nov 2007 13:49:31 +0000

Jerry,
I really have no desire to go on and on about this. My annoyance over your remarks and Chris’ remarks was short-lived. I believe what I said, but, unless you want to continue the thread, my interest is waning rapidly.

By: Brian

Brian — Sat, 10 Nov 2007 13:40:59 +0000

Your statement confirms my impression. You are using the “equivalencing” in an attempt to establish a point: that someone is attempt(ing) to shut down debate on global warming.

Perhaps “debating” was the wrong adjective to describe the “point” you were making. As you state in your last post, you used the examples as a means to an end, as a premise supporting a conclusion. Whatever word you feel properly describes that process, feel free to substitute that for the word “debating.”

By: Jerry

Jerry — Sat, 10 Nov 2007 06:13:52 +0000

Brian,

“You and Chris have introduced extremely offensive ‘equivalences’ or whatever you want to call them, into this conversation. Did it occur to you that by casually recounting anecdotes involving subjects potentially painful to a significant part of a general audience that you might hurt someoneâ€™s sensibilities? I feel used ‘en passant’ in your effort to score a debating point.”

I was unaware that I was debating anyone. I was simply noting that that the equivalencing of global warming skepticism and Holocaust denial has a history prior to 2007. Most specifically, columnist Ellen Goodman was probably not being original when she wrote, “Let’s just say that gobal warming deniers are now on a par with Holocaust deniers.” I will state explicitly that I find the equivalencing offensive and view it as an attempt to shut down debate on global warming.