TWAWKI

This morning I read an article over at The Indapendant Independent that made all sorts of claims about climate skeptics with a picture of Steve McIntyre adjoining (climate audit response here, more comment by Bishop Hill here) – even though Steve McIntyre wasn’t mentioned in the article. The article made all sorts of claims but gave no actual proof. So I commented on the article as follows;

“SO wheres the proof that climate skeptics are linked to big oil? The article above makes assertions that are inconclusive – theres only claims – no links. I run a skeptics blog and to date I havnt received a cent. I do it because I got sick of hear global warming lies. Sort of shoots your theory to bits doesnt it.”

Needless to say my post got deleted My mistake it is still there, but I did receive an email response from juliaandbsmith and then found their post/response still there. as follows;

Subject: Re: Big oil think tanks
Well if you actually read my piece, there is no reference to my views on Climate Change, just a call for all to support democracy, examine actual reality, and set our best minds to work on our common problems. Nothing a reasonable person could possibly object to!

You don’t promote your cause at all well by posting knee-jerk, badly spelt, aggressive posts, even worse, I can’t believe that haven’t even read the previous post, just assumed a position that isn’t even there!!

I’m beginning to make my mind up, in technical matters I’m going to respect the views of people who actually seem to have an education. Perhaps a “blogs” and “posts” filter could be invented to filter out anything with poor spelling, certainly the quality of exchange would be improved, if not the content!

Since when has it been wrong to ask for proof when claims are made. That I would think was a reasonable request. However what I objected to and others found appalling was guilt by insinuation, and as Bishop Hill says – gutter journalism. All these journalists do by their article and response is expose their own ineptitude, their own bias and their own inability to present a reasonable argument. I have emailed them a link to this post – they are free to respond – I’m not interested in censoring them – but what I, like others would like to see is the facts that support their argument – how are we climate skeptics paid by big oil?