And on that issue no one -- no one -- has the right to silence debate -- no scientist, no environmentalist, no politician -- by dismissing anyone who disagrees with them as a "climate denier."
Because what to do about it isn't a scientific issue, it's a political one that will involve huge expenditures of public money. Our money. And we all get to decide that.
Yes, you can question the current orthodoxies about global warming and still care about the environment.
Sounds to me like Lorrie Goldstein is trying to stifle debate not the other way around. We have the right to question dishonest arguments when we see them. We have the right to question the motives of so-called scientists who have such an extreme financial conflict of interest such as receiving money from oil companies. We have the right to question the qualifications of non-experts. These are perfectly reasonable in any serious debate and to dismiss them as being intolerant shows a level of dishonesty.
I would consider Mark an honest participant if he, even just once, looked up and compared what the climate scientists actually say and posts both their viewpoints. It would also be wonderful if Mark actually found sources where there were no financial conflicts of interest or at least looked up these conflicts of interests and were transparent about them so that readers not in-the-know could make a better judgement. Mark not only does not do this, he recycles the same arguments that have been refuted over and over again on this very board.
Thanks to Mark and his fellow distractors, the debate is not focused on what it should be focused on. Which alternative energy sources should be promoted and what kind of leadership does this require? I, for one, do not like the idea of ethanol (especially corn-based) but you never see this type of argument because the Marks of the world screw it up.
I've said this several times now. If climate scientists turn out to be wrong, but leaders are mindful of promoting effective alternative energy sources, the result will be clean air, less habitat disruption and independence from energy derived from politically unstable places in the world. If Mark and right wing oil apologists are wrong we can be in serious trouble. Even worse, the course of this catastrophy is unknown so we can't even properly prepare.





