| Mon, Feb 15, 2010
2:23 AM EST
(I find the existence of climate change deniers absolutely fascinating. If they are wrong, and climate change is real, the consequences will be calamitous for our society. If they are right, and climate change is not real, we will still have undertaken a shift to energy sources with many advantages for our economy, environment, and our health. Given this equation, the motivation for anyone who is not directly employed by the fossil fuel extraction industry to argue against climate change is hard for me to understand. Maybe it is a stalking horse for Republican fearmongering, and that is enough. Do you have a conflict of interest, Shep., do you think this will serve the broader interests of the G.O.P., do you just like being a contrarian on BMG as a matter of principle, or is it something else? In any event, let it never be said that this issue cannot be debated on BMG. - promoted by Bob Neer)
One facet I love about BMG is its capacity for debate (most of the time.) Although I hardly ever agree with the political views of its bloggers, there was always the room to debate.
Except on “global warming,” a term since changed to “climate change.” I was always skeptical of climate change, or at least its man-made caused. And for that I have been called a “denier”, a term meant to invoke something more heinous … ”holocaust denier.” Maybe not on BMG so much, but certainly around town.
No debate, not even dismissal of my position, but a personal attack.
I wonder, given the stunning revelations from the leaked East Anglia emails and subsequent academic scandal spreading throughout the scientific community, how do proponents of climate change here at BMG respond to what reads like a full confession by climatologist Phil Jones?