Quote:
Originally Posted by jamesqf
What name-calling? Accurate descriptions are not name-calling, and false descriptions - such as describing those who reject climate science as skeptics, when they're anything but - are just lies.
Further, if these people were really skeptics, we'd expect them to apply equal skepticism to both sides, but they don't. Instead, every claim, no matter how easily disproved, that can be used to cast doubt on climate science is embraced with a pure credulity untinged by any hint of skepticism. The Sun's getting warmer? Other planets are warming too? Climate scientists are just in it for the money? The Romans grew grapes in Britian, and the Vikings went to Greenland for tropical beach vacations? Where's the skepticism?
|
The name being used is intended as an insult - look at the origin as I tapped earlier. Quite a few Scientists including those on the pro side of the debate have banned the word, along with the usual ones from the other side from their
own websites including climate modellers.
Quote:
So far I have let through every non-spam comment and automatically allowed previous posters to comment. I would like to trust people to be sensible with this and not have to start moderating out comments.
Therefore I ask you to comply with the following:
a) civility is essential;
b) accusations are not to be made;
c) the words denier, liar and fraud are not permitted (this list may increase): see (a) and (b);
...
h) liberally sprinkle your comments with good-humour, honesty, and ‘smiley’ or ‘winky’ faces, to keep the tone convivial.
|
If you aren't willing to switch off a word someone finds offensive then it seems there isn't going to be a debate here. It isn't going to pursuade anyone just offend. Its up to you - my choice is to tune out so I won't be seeing any of your arguments. Meh.