On Thursday, April 26, 2018 at 6:34:26 AM UTC-6, Gary Harnagel wrote:

My point is that this is all being done,

It is not being done at a rate fast enough to keep the maximum extent of
temperature elevation below two degrees Celsius, at which level serious
consequences can be expected.

Now, the sky is not falling, so _if_ the only way we could avoid those serious
consequences would be to invite economic disaster, then a policy decision not to
follow the recommendations of those who are focused on the climate component of
the issue would not be unreasonable.

I think the climate scientists are right about AGW, and thus I think that the
right way to avoid economic disaster is to advocate nuclear, because trying to
argue that the scientific climate consensus is wrong just leads to a different
bad course of action, and makes one look foolish to boot.

Have I disrespected you? Where have I been a bad example? I'm sorry
if I have, but those on the AGW side have been MUCH worse.

We hold you to a higher standard. Those who *dare* to contradict the TRUTH
handed out by Science are to be meek, and they are to *expect* to be derided as
fools. AGW, like Relativity, and like Newton's Theory of Gravity, is a subject
on which Science has *spoken*!

You may feel this is unfair. You may feel science is breaking its own rules in
the case of AGW.

But the way others see it is: you are a toxic spill of misinformation, which
might actually be taken seriously by some of those people who aren't well-
educated in science but still can vote, and you need to be contained as swiftly
as possible.

Hence ridicule. Hence what you see as "brown shirt" tactics.

So when you notice that self-righteousness can make liberals behave a lot like
fascists, well, you're not hallucinating. I'll give you that. Since for a change
the self-righteous liberals are right here, though, I think you're fighting the
wrong battle.

John Savard