View Single Post
Old 01-04-2013, 01:02 PM   #335 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Earth
Posts: 5,209
Thanks: 225
Thanked 807 Times in 591 Posts
Originally Posted by Arragonis View Post
As I tapped earlier using either insult, or indeed any others says more about the source than the target.
How is either one an insult? Certainly there are plenty of green on the outside, red on the inside "watermelons" in the environmentalist ranks. Indeed, as an environmentalist of the libertarian variety, I'd say pretty much the entire Green Party grew on vines.

As for "denialist", what is it but an accurate description? When confronted with a) the fact that the laws of physics say global warming should happen; and b) overwhelming evidence showing that it is in fact happening pretty much as physics says it should be; they deny that it is happening.

Now you can't really call these people "skeptics", even though some would prefer the term, because their self-proclaimed skepticism is pretty darned selective, and turns into utter credulity when they come across anything seeming to contradict AGW.
The Following User Says Thank You to jamesqf For This Useful Post:
NeilBlanchard (01-04-2013)