A lackluster "Offensive"

PMF responds

Wow. I must have hit a real sore point with you. You tired me out so much by the second paragraph, so I gave up and skipped to the end. Seriously. Who cares about your rants? Like I said, rearranging deck chairs on The Titanic. You, like so many other ultra-conservative bloggers, and again, that's being charitable, spend enormous time and energy attacking anyone with whom you disagree. It's just stupid that you wasted so much time attacking me, and it says much more about you than it does about me…

I will continue to call attention to those hyper-conservative bloggers who are burying their heads in the sand and whining to the rest of us about global warming because there may be some scientific uncertainty about it.

So much for that vaunted “offensive” PMF promised.

First, I did not attack PMF. I attacked his argument, or more precisely his lack of an argument.

Second, that PMF mounts weak sophist “offensives” instead of engaging the arguments of the skeptics, says a great deal more about his position than it does mine or me personally. I actually offered an argument and marshaled facts and evidence, but PMF can’t be bothered to engage it or the substantive issues. Furthermore, he can’t even be bothered to make a counter argument of his own. Then again, I’m not surprised, even Al Gore refuses to debate the issues. When cornered into debating issues most, though not all, on the left refuse to do so.

BTW I once found myself in the alarmist camp, until I bothered to research the other side. The skeptic argument convinced me to change positions. Also, the term “skeptic” is a misnomer, the majority of skeptics do not deny that the planet is warming, they are skeptical of the notions human induced carbon dioxide emissions caused the warming trend, that the warming is catastrophic, and that alarmist policy prescriptions will do much more harm than good.