by Full text, just in case:
Hello readers,
I told Derek a solid two months ago that I was going to write this post and I am sure he is wondering if I was ever going to do it well here it is finally and please try not to take it personally since this intended for clarifying what I think is really important.
I have seen in various places on the net and through some private e-mail threads of angry confrontations between "skeptics" that I think goes beyond the pale because it is highly divisive and pointless because it no longer addresses the real problem of warmists hijacking the climate based research of science subjects and the compliant widespread media who helps push the CAWG propaganda despite the abject failure of the AGW conjecture.I just quit a forum where a lot of nasty narrow minded CAWG propagandists abounded and their common replies were deliberate confrontative B.S. It took me 5 weeks to realize that these people never intended to carry on a reasonable argument on anything and therefore it was no longer worth my time visiting again.This is the trail the skeptics are heading into if they keep up with the absurd infighting where they tear each other down much to the delight of the warmist/alarmist camps.
The infighting has divided people right here in my forum where a number of forum members have stopped coming including Richard S. Courtney,Terry Oldberg,John Kehr and Jason_85.It is a loss that I have keenly felt because the voices of skepticism is quieted down to a murmur and the simulating effect of smart people visiting and posting here also winds down.
I am also unhappy with Anthony Watts for his over the top disparaging of so called "fringe site" such as the following he listed at his blog page on the right side part way down the page:
Climate Realists - where they post some of the same articles that Watts post at his own blog.He also post opposing views there as well something Anthony never does.
Talbloke's Talkshop - where he dares to explore the science outside the box.Especially over the solar effects on the Earths climate in various ways rarely discussed elsewhere.
Climate Progress - where Joe Romm does not deserve attention by posting a link to his nasty blog.
Why couldn't he say nothing at all about them in the first place and spare the anger? Why bother with posting the "fringe sites" insults and then put them out for ridicule on his blog that can only promote more divisiveness and anger that is clearly unproductive?
What in the hell prompted him to be like this?
I happen to like Tallbloke Talkshop and Climate Realists blogs and by golly I will continue to visit their blogs for information on the topics that interest me and that includes the so called "fringe" topics they post there.They are creating discussions on topics that Anthony Watts has blocked at his blog and that is why I applaud them for it.
Then there is the churlish response's by many to the there is no greenhouse effect camp of John O'Sullivan and the PSI group along with the Slaying the Sky Dragon blog and Derek Alker.Where they are dismissed as kooks and worse.If it is indeed nonsense it will die out in time and therefore would be a waste of energy to get so angry over it.I know of prominent skeptics who savaged the no greenhouse camp in the e-mail threads including those from Viscount Monckton and Anthony Watts.They were quite upset and requested strongly to be taken off the e-mail list.I know of it because I was part of the e-mail group who read them.Their anger was unnecessary since all they had to do was leave but nooo they had to be nasty nasty about it first before they left the e-mail thread.
However I had to help The Air Vent's blog owner stop Doug Cotton from continuing to thread bomb a couple of threads after he was already banned for his behavior.He would simply change his name and continue on and on and be a jackass in the process.I was in position to help Jeff Condon deal with Mr. Cotton's wayward actions by going through a channel that I have at my fingertip that fixed the problem.I hated to do that but it was creating a lot of animosity there in AND elsewhere that was only going to increase the infighting between differing groups of skeptics on this sore point of topic.
In my own forum I had to slow down a Moderator because he was getting too aggressive in his replies and going outside my DISCUSSION format set up that I wanted to run the forum on in place of the usual squabbling debating format that is common elsewhere.I had to use the PM's and other avenues to reemphasize the idea that THIS forum is supposed to be running on reasonably civil discussion for the purpose of understanding the topics.The Moderator Derek apologized and backed off.Richard Fowler never did back off or accept Derek's apology and that is why he got a warning from me.
Richard Fowler who was embroiled in some of the same ruckus with Derek and myself for his whining in the public area of the forum had to be given an official 20% warning for his refusal to keep his complaints private and to answer me some specific questions he never answered.He never came back after he saw the warning and you know what ..... he EARNED IT for not responding to my reasonable requests.I was fed up with him for muddying the threads up with his off topic rants.
I must be that rare skeptic where I have real tolerance of differing views over the question of whether there is a greenhouse effect at all or a small one that has minimal impact on the climate trends.I have been ready to allow these viewpoints to be well aired here with my Moderation support for constructive discussions on them but alas the small greenhouse effect camp seems to avoid my forum completely leaving the No greenhouse effect camps position unchallenged.
I have no problem with these differing views getting the exposure and I like them since they simulate and clarify what we understand but it is a continual mystery to me on why skeptics feel the need to claw each other up so much when the real enemy is not us at all but the hostile socialist environmentalist anti freedom busybody creeps who are bent on controlling the world with their insane policies that are demonstrably wrong from the start.We need to stop the infighting and get back to work contending the absurd doomsday messages the warmist/alarmists are making along with the uncritical media who help them spread the false gospel of the CAWG conjecture that has yet to gain even minimal credibility.This is the real battle we should be fighting for and for our freedom to live responsibly and freely in the future.
We are supposed to be skeptical of the CAWG conjecture and explain why to anyone who are in need of answers to why we do not accept this never verified conjecture and how we can show this clearly.That is what we are supposed to be in the fight for.To educate the unwary and bewildered people out there who have been given for YEARS of mind numbing incomprehensible dooms day babbling from the media that never adds up in their minds.That is the TRUE role of the active CAWG skeptic that should be the PRIMARY effort in pursuit of the battle to free people from the scaremongering racket they have been a victim of and to help restore the long valid Scientific Method that is in tatters these days.
Can CAWG skeptics stop fighting each other over the secondary issues and concentrate on beating the CAWG conjecture loving supporters instead?
