In the last paragraph of your comment you wrote, “I have presented here a lengthy refutation of much of your nonsense,” despite that you did not address any of my arguments.
You are wrong in your authoritarian statements. For example:
- You do not understand what science is. It is not pure truth as you try to put in my mouth. It is a permanent questioning of what we know so far.
- Copernicus theory was dismissed for centuries. Einstein’s theory was rejected by many for years.
- In your view, the National Academy of Sciences serves the same role for science as The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith does for the Catholic Church.
- If immigration and health care were approached scientifically, we would not have them as political problems.
- You accuse me of lying when I state that IPCC recommends political action due to climate change.
Climate changing is a real issue we are facing. Potential consequences could be grave, not only if we do nothing but also if what we do misfires. For this reason, I am trying to open a public debate on this matter. People, as Michael Barnard do not want public scrutiny of their point of view. You arrogantly dismiss my objections as “irrational obtuseness.”
With whom are you ready to conduct a mutually respectful debate? Or do you hope that if your faction wins the election, you would be able to institute laws banning from media or maybe putting in prison people whom you deem irrational, like me? So far, Michael Barnard did the most he could.
How will the well-being of our nation benefit if, following your approval of action by Michael Barnard, I will block you? For the record, I will not do that.
Without saying it, you promote the elitist point of view that ordinary folks are not capable of comprehending complex matters. People as me need to follow wise guys, like yourself, mindlessly. You tend to see simple issues as convoluted ones. The leading picture of my article perfectly illustrates this mindset. Those who try to simplify what you like to intricate are a “part of the anti-intellectual tradition in American politics” for whom “bumper sticker slogans are so much easier to grasp than science.” Science is in making simple to understand issues that once seemed difficult. Conceit, you did not notice this yet.
In your haughtiness, your most persuasive arguments are ugly insults:
“Once again you promulgate ignorance of science.”
“Read it and learn.”
“That’s part of the anti-intellectual tradition in American politics”
“You are welcome to reject rationalism and science”
“rational people pay heed to what the scientists are saying. You should, too.”
“failure to understand the meaning of the word “incontrovertible”. Look it up.”
“you have already made up your mind to reject science for political reasons.”
“It is a waste of time to present rational arguments to an irrational person. You are such a person.”
“I have presented many detailed responses to your nonsense, and you simply ignore them.”
When I was a kid, my mother always told me to dismiss people who offended me because: “Their are the names they call you.” It nicely rhymes in Polish. Her advice was right then, and it is right now.