tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3692282252844489453.post6765648828975173499..comments2024-03-01T18:58:48.605-08:00Comments on What'sUpWithThatWatts, et al.: Ignorant, stupid, insane or just plain evil? (#6 in comment series)citizenschallengehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04559990934735912814noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3692282252844489453.post-26816076816725893222016-01-31T09:49:43.580-08:002016-01-31T09:49:43.580-08:00Kevin, there's always infantile, now that it s...Kevin, there's always infantile, now that it seems Andrew has resorted to name calling and smearing rather than engaging. I have him marked down as hypocritical denier but that's an oxymoron (cue Andrew accusing me of calling him a moron).Catmandohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12313870265499015076noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3692282252844489453.post-35095157541587135502016-01-30T21:31:49.307-08:002016-01-30T21:31:49.307-08:00Andrew - it is very strange logic you must utilize...Andrew - it is very strange logic you must utilize. Stating that two views are mutually contradictory does not change the fact that they *are* mutually contradictory. Obviously one is completely and totally *wrong* - hence you are admittedly promoting views that are completely and totally wrong.<br /><br />Now, you might do this out of ignorance, out of stupidity, or because you're just plain evil. Who knows? Who really cares? In the end the result is the same.<br /><br />I leave out insane as an option here because you admit the views are contradictory, though a case could be made that only an insane person would think he's helping the public discourse by promoting completely and totally wrong views. So, perhaps I was too hasty in getting rid of that option. <br />Kevin O'Neillhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06692943768484857724noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3692282252844489453.post-26481515514202907922016-01-30T20:39:09.574-08:002016-01-30T20:39:09.574-08:00Sure he is Poppy, sure he is. And you see it all ...Sure he is Poppy, sure he is. And you see it all so clearly. <br />That's why every comment you make (not just here, but in the blogosphere in general) <br />is basically an echo of this same refrain, with everyone that rejects your logic has a comprehension problem. <br /><br />Keep working on that self-skepticism<br />_______________________________________________________________________________________________<br /><br />citizenschallengehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04559990934735912814noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3692282252844489453.post-1593131164070852012016-01-30T17:01:13.712-08:002016-01-30T17:01:13.712-08:00Kevin O'Neil is a typical online clown with a ...Kevin O'Neil is a typical online clown with a reading comprehension problem. This nonsense is long refuted in the rebuttals to criticism section and stated clearly in the disclaimer on the list.<br /><br />Criticism: Some of the papers are mutually exclusive [contradictory].<br /><br />Rebuttal: The list is a bibliographic resource not a unified scientific theory and does not discriminate between competing skeptical viewpoints. It is left up to the person using the resource to make up their own minds regarding any mutually exclusive claims. Anyone open minded would accept the existence of independent thought and debate on climate change.<br /><br />Attacking the list with strawman arguments is all alarmists have.Andrewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05170143101028077396noreply@blogger.com