Except that I'm neither Christian nor conservative, nor do I dismiss the idea that AGW is possible. I just think that argumentum ad Hitlerum is unscientific, and that the drumbeat of use of the term "denialist" makes those who want to warn others about the externalities of AGW seem less persuasive, not more.
Anyway, if the goal is to wind people up, then that sort of childishness proves my point.
Like actual violence only? Or are stories like this false? Don't get me wrong, I don't agree with religious conservatives on this issue. But Canada's reputation is of being a country where one can be civilly liable for expressing politically incorrect opinions, and if so, that's pretty fucking far from free speech.
So, everyone can express their honest, unvarnished opinion about ethnicity, religion, and homosexuality in Canada, right?
I speculate that the reason you're uncomfortable with it is not to do with science at all, but to do with your politics. You find that the people on the other side of the political spectrum from you have no doubt about AGW. But that people who are your natural allies are where the deniers come from. That's obviously going to make you uneasy about it.
That's probably fair. Thing is, though, not only do (most) progressives have no doubt about AGW, they've stridently politicized skepticism toward it. That doesn't make them wrong on the issue, but at the same time it's not unreasonable that would make moderates, conservatives, and libertarians suspect that their motivation is not so much from science, but rather is simply a convenient article of faith that supports their ideological objectives.
This. I'm one of the ones who really doesn't know what to believe, but every time I hear the term "denier" used in this amazingly offensive and inappropriate context I stop listening, because it makes it sound like the one saying it doesn't have actual dispassionate arguments and has to rely on ad hominem. I won't say I agree with the skeptics, but mocking them is the antithesis of science, not the defense of it.
Here's a longer, more nuanced verison of why crying "denier!" is anti-scientific.
In an era of "quantitative easement", leaving money in the bank does involve risk.
No surprise -- some of my best libertarian friends are also still unconformed hippies.
peruse tr.v. perused, perusing, peruses: To read or examine, typically with great care. So in other words, it's pretty much what they're saying they're entitled to do.
The program is new, but the school isn't. They've been accredited for nearly fifty years.
No way. As I learned from Star Trek, they're all M-class. All of them.
Thanks! I put it in the public domain, so share and enjoy.
Hence the saying that the Constitution may not be perfect, but it's better than what we have now.
(or at least universal for the sex that cares about protecting freedoms)
You're engaging in this sort of collectivist thinking here. Neither sex cares about protecting freedoms. There are a few individuals of each sex who do, and overall probably more of them are men than women, but that's as close as you can get to your remark — which, in case you don't realize it, is more likely to be alienating than persuasive.
Yes, and Mongolia can claim to have conquered Russia...
just not lately.
It's not quite the cupholder call, but in the '90s I did phone support for an ISP that had a lot of elderly customers, and one time I really did get the "any key" call.
For God's sake, stop researching for a while and begin to think!
