Well, I disagree, the science is as settled as we could ever hope for. (ipcc.ch) If you want to be impractically pedantic, we don't know anything for sure.
There is no credible competing theory that can explain the recent rise in global temperatures. (skepticalscience.com)
Your Krugman link makes a reasonable point - it's hard to know whether the title of this post is useful rhetoric, I think those who aren't so easily triggered will still check the content to see what actual points are being made. Certainly Republicans don't have a monopoly on depravity. I think adopting a common label for ones political opinions is a sign of an unthinking person.
I tune out people from both sides. Krugman is one, but Hannity is one on the other side. Both are ridiculous shills imo. It is a more efficient use of my time to skip over such people, and read those who I know are more intellectually honest.
Maybe I need to take a closer look at the global warming data available.
I tune out people from both sides. Krugman is one, but Hannity is one on the other side. Both are ridiculous shills imo. It is a more efficient use of my time to skip over such people, and read those who I know are more intellectually honest.
I guess there's no clear line between wasting time on shills, and closing yourself off too much to opposing ideas.
If it's a credible enough line of thought others will be promoting it as well.
(post is archived)