raveneye

Uh, there’s a difference whether some scientist somewhere professes personal ignorance about AGW (as Christy does in his article), and whether “peer reviewed studies” cast serious doubt on AGW. You seem to want to believe for some reason that the link you posted contained the latter. It doesn’t, and your argument that it does is false. If you disagree then feel free to defend your claim. If you can’t, then feel free to concede the point.

How about what? Are you making some sort of argument here? You know, with premises, a little logic, and a conclusion? What is it, that Christy is a smart guy, therefore AGW is a hoax? Do expect us to read your mind?

Christy may have doubts about AGW, but he hasn’t defended his doubts in any peer-reviewed scientific research, as you seem to want to believe. Until he’s done so, his opinion is no more valuable than the hundreds of peer-reviewed scientific studies that contradict him with, you know, actual reasoned scientific logic.

You made yourself a subject of the thread by volunteering the information that you decided to close your mind on the subject. Therefore, you’re closed-minded on the subject and all that that implies. If you didn’t want anybody to discuss your close-mindedness then perhaps you shouldn’t have brought your closed-mindedness up in the first place. Sound like a good idea?

And if you had read Hansen, you’d know that he in fact did not call any specific person a name. He used what is called a “metaphor” to make a point about the population of closed-minded people. He could have simply called them “closed minded” but he was trying to make a slightly more nuanced point, namely that they do serve an instructive purpose for the rest of the population that is not closed-minded (which as we now know sadly does not apply to you).

You might want to read what he wrote, it’s actually quite insightful.