I personally dislike anyone responding to concerns and criticisms with name calling! It strikes me as such a lazy way out and possibly evidence that the responder HAS NO SCIENTIFIC WORK SUPPORTING THEIR BELIEF AND CAN 'ARGUE' WITH SOMEONE ONLY BY CALLING THEM NAMES. I perceive Roget Pielke as an honest scientist trying his best to sort t…
I personally dislike anyone responding to concerns and criticisms with name calling! It strikes me as such a lazy way out and possibly evidence that the responder HAS NO SCIENTIFIC WORK SUPPORTING THEIR BELIEF AND CAN 'ARGUE' WITH SOMEONE ONLY BY CALLING THEM NAMES. I perceive Roget Pielke as an honest scientist trying his best to sort through the 'mess' of incomplete and contradictory science out there on the effects of humanity on CO2 and of CO2 on the weather and then the very messy and fraught topic of what any of it means for the future. So, boo on Real Clear Investigations for perpetuating this response tactic. I suspect Roger Pielke does NOT and should not) take it personally.
I personally dislike anyone responding to concerns and criticisms with name calling! It strikes me as such a lazy way out and possibly evidence that the responder HAS NO SCIENTIFIC WORK SUPPORTING THEIR BELIEF AND CAN 'ARGUE' WITH SOMEONE ONLY BY CALLING THEM NAMES. I perceive Roget Pielke as an honest scientist trying his best to sort through the 'mess' of incomplete and contradictory science out there on the effects of humanity on CO2 and of CO2 on the weather and then the very messy and fraught topic of what any of it means for the future. So, boo on Real Clear Investigations for perpetuating this response tactic. I suspect Roger Pielke does NOT and should not) take it personally.