From a Redstate
rant on the horrors of the Rio conference:
food for thought - AGW is all bad all the time
I know the bulk of the folks on this site are lawyerly inclined, but for we scientifical types, this stuff is red meat.
Good sources of retorts to the climate change / sustainable development / rggi foolishness.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/01/green_lebensraum_the_nazi_roots_of_sustainable_development.html
http://joannenova.com.au/2012/06/nature-and-that-problem-of-defining-homo-sapiens-denier-is-it-english-or-newspeak/
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2012/06/21/response-to-paul-bain/
Is he being deliberately ironic in calling himself "scientifical" and then linking to "the Nazi roots of sustainable development"? We may never know.
 |
| You're all NAZIS! |
It seems more and more frequently ignorant right-wingers assert their "scientific" chops, not in the expectation that anyone will believe them, but as a way of illustrating how little facts and reason matter to them generally.
Your conclusion that climate skeptics are illustrating how little facts and reason matter to them generally provokes a thought Ive been toying with but am thus far unable to mould into anything useful. Climate *skepticism* is more a commentary than a case.
ReplyDeleteMost self-described skeptics are nothing of the sort, most apparently don't even understand what a skeptic is. Many are just ill-informed idiots who found something on the internet that agrees with their preconceptions.
ReplyDeleteEither that, or they're lying, probably for money or some ideology.
As for citing 'American Thinker' and those other anti-scientific sources, one can't help but suspect he was being ironic, albeit possibly unconsciously so.