"The "climate change" crazies have one thing in common: they all know how to lie with statistics [amazon.com]. My clearest evidence against them is the fact that their "argument" relies more on the star/celebrity power of their spokespeople than on actual scientific evidence, just like the anti-vaccination crowd."
You are appealing to reason, but you categorically dismiss people that hold the view you are opposing as crazies? What an ass. Emotion, not reason is what is motivating you. There are some serious questions to ask here, but you have obviously already made your decision based on something else other than reason. Why dont you just simplify it and start ranting about liberals?
By the way, those "crazies" happen to include the vast majority of climatologists, you know, scientists that study climate, rather than say petroleum engineering, or geology, or geophysics, or develop nuclear warheads, or various other disciplines that are not climate.
Ive read quite a few articles, by scientists that do not study climate, decrying Anthropogenic Climate Change. Often some very good criticisms of the science or presentation are raised, some that I have seen addressed and some that I haven't. This is good, what isnt good is how often the argument degrades to complaints about media, celebrities, economics, political issues and other things that are not science, and how often climate change itself is attacked even though the articles usually start with a disclaimer that that is not what they are disputing. I take the good, leave the bad, and remember that there is a discipline of science that studies climate, and that these guys are criticizing from outside the discipline, which is good but does not put their contributions above those within.
There are some serious criticisms of Anthropogenic Climate Change that need to be addressed, but that those that hold that view are "crazies" is not one of them.
