The more I learn, the more I think that this brief encounter sums up to me the reality that lurks behind dismissive terms like “denier.” The so-called global warmind deniers are looking more and more to me like the voice of science, while the alarmists are more and more looking to me like deeply devoted protestors seeking political leverage. This particular Greenpeace activists approach of “no, I’ve never checked, but I believe lobby groups” is replicated by politicians in Copenhagen who are in positions to make decisions that affect us all.

This is why the alarmists do not want open dialogue. They want the ear of those in power. This is why, as noted earlier, their response to skepticism must consist of derision and sarcasm, along with a healthy dose of well poisoning. The science just isn’t there for them to appeal to it.

Hat tip to Christian News NZ for this interview.

Similar Posts:

• Episode 004: Parodying Plato
• Jim Spiegel’s “Blog Tour”
• Pathological misrepresentation by infidels
• Politicians can’t argue, and water is wet
• Plantinga at the Sci Phi Show
• John Sanders and the problem of suffering