Tonight he has posted (arcvhived) something that shows he hasn't really got a clue what his baying hounds of fellow deniers write. You see, he got a bit antsy about something that Lord Deben, the former John Selwyn Gummer, tweeted:
Why are climate naysayers so personally unpleasant? In no other issue do dissenters turn so quickly from argument to abuse and innuendo.
|Lord Deben, clearly one of those eco-socialists, except he was one of Margaret Thatcher's ministers and quite keen on free enterprise|
In order to ram the point home he post a picture of some environmentalists with flaming torches and a challenge:
I challenge Lord Deben to find examples of climate skeptics doing anything remotely close to this sort of ugliness that is much like of the tactics of the Klu Klux Klan – showing up at somebody’s house with mask covered faces, torches, and a threat."That is much like" suggests a man on the edge of providing another example of Godwin's law in action. But not quite. I must admit, if I did not have the KKK rammed down my throat here, it is not what I would have thought of. Most of the world sees the white robes, the pointy hats and the Christian tolerance message of the vile racism of KKK members. Perhaps Antony needs a reminder:
Anyway, what the commenters on WUWT can be relied upon is to give evidence that anyone who suggests climate deniers are unpleasant is correct:
KaboomWell, Kaboom, look it up. You know, do what skeptics really do and find out for yourself. Wait, I'll help you:
To oppose, deny, or take a pessimistic or negative viewAnyway, having demonstrated wilful ignorance, very few debates on WUWT get any better.
onlymeSee what I mean. and as for the behaviour fitting the nobility, the tame peer at WUWT, his lordship Viscount Monckton of Brenchley, barely leaves the playground in his level of disputation. So much for nobility.
I know I have. From having my sexuality questioned, to having crude jokes about my profession, these tiresome and childish insults and innuendoes come only from the climate science denier side and not the so called "warmist" side.
I had been thinking of writing a post about the inability of climate science deniers to look at the scientific evidence with anything like an open mind and why they seem so keen to resort to ad hominem arguments. When I saw Antony Watts's post, I didn't need to. He had, in his customary way, given the answer himself. It's a surprise he didn't ask the Nuremburg trials. Oh, wait, Dellingpole already did that.