Lessons from l’affaire Heartland:
The Heartland affair has shown not merely that some climate alarmists (namely Gleick) will stoop to outright deception, and most of his peers will close ranks to defend him in a sort of Green Wall of Silence. Perhaps more disturbing, it reveals that these people really have no idea how their opponents on the climate issue actually view the world. So when they dismiss skeptics as having no legitimate arguments, it should make outsiders take pause.
Without being a trained climate scientist, I can read the various blogs and try to parse the academic papers, but ultimately I have to rely a lot on the good faith and judgment of the scientists themselves. The Heartland affair has reassured my earlier conviction that the case for climate alarmism is far weaker than the alarmists have been telling us.
His emphasis. I think it applies to how the Left views its skeptics in general.
The science is settled in regards to whether anyone should faith based beliefs in the merits of the apocolyptic global warming advocating climate “scientists”. No, no one should believe them out of faith that they are immune from the human condition.
Liberals tend to not understand Conservatives (capital or lower-case C) in general. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/22/opinion/kristof-politics-odors-and-soap.html?_r=1&emc=eta1
And vice-versa.
Try reading the article. I know it’s from the New York Times (a questionable source) but studies show conservatives understand liberals far better than liberals understand conservatives.
And the super short version of why:
Utopia is easy to conceptualize, describe, and evangelize.
TANSTAAFL, however, is moronic because grammar is more important than even attempting to understand.
Liberals also tend not to follow links and read.
Oh, snap.
Which is why liberals want to shut down speech and conservatives want more speech. YMMV.
Now for something both the left and the right can get behind… Tacocopter.