re: #495 gnargtharst

Overall, this seemed an odd topic to me: criticsm of a kook for holding kooky ideas, alongside controversial ideas which are likely beyond the expertise of anybody here, so that the legitimate criticism is inextricably twsited together with a conclusion one way or another on the issue of AGW… a topic about which you admittedly have no firm opinion.

For topics like this, that typically shed far more flames than light, I typically ask a question that gets to the heart of the methodology involved:

What fact or facts would convince you one way or another about X? [X being alternatively AGW, catastrophic AGW, the efficacy of organic granola, etc.]

Without such a cognitive standard, is there any reason to even discuss AGW, or sea levels, etc.?

I have no idea what your point is with this.

MY point is that we need to be very careful about who we align ourselves with, because there’s way too much crackpot garbage being spread about this issue.

And I have a thing about people who lie and misrepresent facts, especially when they are serving a dishonest agenda.