I choose this particular website piece – which was written against my American Thinker article 'Yet Another Hottest Year Since 1880?' - because it reflects the zealotry and intemperance which is quite common amongst those who accept the anthropogenic global warming (AGW) theory. It appears that the transcendent importance of the cause – saving the world from capitalists and other devils – warrants (at least in this case) such unrestrained language.
“This website is both my personal learning project and my contribution in the struggle to confront the ongoing attacks on rational science and objective learning, that are the hallmarks of the faith-based 'skeptics' movement.”
“Unfortunately the Lord [ Monckton]....presents an advocates sales pitch. His science is cherry picked and distorted with a fiction writer's zeal.”
“Mr. Steele.... considering your noble sounding appeals to Carl Sagan's advice and a 'civil' debate, I'm appalled at the ease with which you lie about scientists, their science and Earth observations.”
“Skepticism is about asking questions and wanting answers and being open to best information available, even when that information steps all over pervious understanding/belief. It's not about winning or ego, it's about learning. Skepticism is about not fully trusting anyone, not even yourself. Skepticism is about weeding though nonsense and allowing the evidence to dictate what one trusts.”
i) Scepticism directed at the anthropogenic global warming theory is false scepticism (i.e., “one-dimensional scepticism”).
ii) Scepticism which accepts is is true scepticism.
“.... another rambling kindergarden-ish cherry-picking collage”, “... childish reasoning”, “tossing out a bunch of discombobulated strands”, “Is this what Thinking in America has come to?”, “.... someone who's consumed by hustling and playing the 'Number$ game and such”, “All that matters; is turning those numbers into profits”, “an irrational appeal to distrust scientists and ignore the evidence”, “Does that really represent American thinking?”, “Screaming high octane nonsense at hard working professionals so you can ignore their information”, “.... your objections are fabrications and misrepresentations that depend on repeating meaningless talking-point-lies over and over - and then driving home your distraction with personal innuendos...”, “Why do you folks think understanding our climate system deserves such malicious contempt?”, “It's about out-screaming the information that real experts are sharing with us”, “this class-clown”, “Absolute disinterest in understanding stuff. All about playing his crowd and racking political points”, “Keeping the public as confused and apathetic as possible”....
In all honesty, I was going to discuss his points against me one by one. However, beyond the vitriolic and sarcastic language, I soon discovered that there were no points to discuss.
“What's that all about? What good is tossing out a bunch of discombobulated strands while totally ignoring the underlying geophysics of what's happening?”
“The only message that rings through in this article is an irrational appeal to distrust scientists and ignore the evidence.”
“Why do you folks think understanding our climate system deserves such malicious contempt? What's wrong with seriously understanding what's happening within this biosphere and climate system that we all depend on for everything?”