> > The most interesting thing about deniers isn't that they rely on bogus > > facts but that the facts they use contradict their conclusions. > > > For example, if one third of the earth is cooling then the > > implications are, > > > 1. 2/3rds of the surface is warming, possibly at a higher rate than > > the cooling of the other third. The fact that deniers haven't (up > > until now) ever suggested that the cooling of the one third is much > > greater than the warming of the 2/3rds just shows they are too > > ignorant of middle school math to even argue in their own direction. > > > 2. the studies of tree rings in one region don't say anything about > > the _global_ climate. > > Worst of all, they deny the conclusions of those most experienced in > the field. Bad kids in the classroom don't even do that. Only > prisoners in prison would think of something like that.
Steve Jobs' new age consciousness home cancer treatments notwithstanding, independent thinking should be encouraged, _even if it results in errors_. As Nietzsche pointed out, "the errors of great men are more fruitful than the truths of little men."
Supposing one of these deniers was an otherwise great thinker making an error? Supposing his error in AGW might lead to a great breakthrough in sustainability?
The point here is that this is not and can not be the case because deniers are only just functional enough to parrot GOP "market" economists, the same shills who tacitly admit they are too dog poop stoopid to answer The Question: "Does free speech precede each and ever free trade?"
There is no independent thinking on the part of deniers. If deniers cannot even come up with their own conspiracy theories and propaganda.
If they cannot even do the middle school math and claim that the 1/3 is cooling much more than the 2/3rds that is warming, then they obviously are parrots too stupid to spin their own lies, not great thinkers.