Prev  1  2  3  

Comments 101 to 106 out of 106:

101. Bob Lacatena at 21:37 PM on 25 August, 2011
     100, les, Wow. I knew Motl was wrong on the science, but I didn't know he lived in such an angry bizarro opposite-world. He says (I still can't believe it... my fingers feel dirty just having done the copy/paste):

     So I started to maintain a list with names of the most notorious alarmists and the number of years they should spend in prison (not to speak about the separate "electric chair" list). You're encouraged to do the same thing.

     Anyone who can't see the difference between the post here at SkS and that sort of behavior needs a major perspective adjustment.
     0 0
102. les at 00:26 AM on 26 August, 2011
     Wow indeed. John Cook runs this site from his own pocket + donations + volunteer support. Then announces publicly he's been give a [well deserved IMHO] fellowship... and the bizarrosphere goes "Busted! SkS is a funded propaganda machine". The reality distorting force is strong a bit wishy-washy with these ones...
     0 0
103. Composer99 at 02:05 AM on 26 August, 2011
     I do not think it as at all inappropriate to refer to those who oppose mainstream climatology on AGW as 'deniers' or even 'denialists' as long as it can be shown that they are: - in the first case, engaged in denying a phenomenon which has ample evidentiary support without bringing sufficient evidentiary support to their positions. - in the second case, extending this denial into a systematic misrepresentation of the evidence. The attempt to take offence at this terminology by drawing attention to Holocaust denial is a red herring.
     0 0
104. John Hartz at 06:09 AM on 28 August, 2011
     Yet another reason why Patrick Michaels has to be included in the top tier of climate deniers… "Get Real: Hurricane Irene Should Be Renamed "Hurricane Hype'” by Patrick Michaels, Forbes, Climate of Fear Blog, Forbes, Aug 26, 2011 To access this inane article, click here. How many pounds of crow does Michaels eat during the course of a year?
     0 0
105. diane5591 at 16:03 PM on 31 October, 2011
     I think this is an unfortunate addition to the cool science for which skepticalscience has become known. Preaching to the converted is easy enough. But when one manages to get the dubious to consider these pages for their science, it is disheartening to see that they are immediately turned off by what they see, and interpret, as a politican-partisan stance. Let the science speak, please, and think about how this page must seem to those who are personally loyal to the individuals shown here.
     0 0
106. Stephen Baines at 16:46 PM on 31 October, 2011
     Diane, I think the database is important if people want to trace statements made by specific people to posts on SkS. But it is also important to avoid alienating anyone who is honestly skeptical. How would you avoid the appearance "political-partisan stance." What is the trigger for your impression.
     0 0

Prev  1  2  3  

You need to be logged in to post a comment. Login via the left margin or if you're new, register here.