Reading through the comment sections of Gleick articles, the one thing that really stands out is that alarmists never discuss science. Their argument invariably consists of appeals to some imaginary authority, and quoting wildly fraudulent statistics to back up their claims of having authority on their side.
Alarmists tend to be genuine, bona fide morons.
as less and less people believe…
…you’ll be left with the lowest common denominator
I vote for mental illness, but moronic works as well.
Plus, any association with a fossil fuel industry – however vague – renders skeptic scientists not only corrupt, but also deserving of the label ‘criminal against humanity’.
But when no less than the IPCC Vice Chair Jean-Pascal van Ypersele was commissioned by Greenpeace to write a paper ( http://tinyurl.com/6lr6jjq ) while he was working at the IPCC, well….. nothing to see there, move along.
“Alarmists tend to be genuine, bona fide morons.”
How should I be able to tell these ones from the pretend morons, or even cretins? What is the tell-tale sign?
I like this.I cannot remember where it came from. “Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity” “It is malicious,extremely so ” How do I know ?…I am stupid. Stupid doesnt go that far. Stupid eventually gives up.