Tarski wrote:Conspiracy thinking at its best.
It is rather spooky.
As you clearly do not understand the difference between a conspiracy theory and many years of research, study, and publication by large numbers of knowledgeable intellectuals, academics, scholars, and journalists who have spent many years studying the matter, very little of what you say bears much more serious attention.
Can you possibly explain why you listen to Singer's opinions but not other active mainstream researchers in the prime of their career that go much further in detailing their science?
Since you refuse to be intellectually serious, appear not to have read on the issue much beyond RealClimate, DeSmogBlog, and and WWF fundraising literature, and have probably never read a single black and white page written by the eminent Dr. Singer, let alone a book, monograph, symposium paper, or op-ed, who, unlike you, is actually qualified academically to pronounce on this issue, has spent much of his life studying and critiquing it, and who has published extensively and travels around the world speaking before scientific, scholarly, and governmental bodies on the topic on an almost continual basis, where, one wonders, is your credibility?
Why, for example, is it that if I mention names and opinions of eminent scientists (currently active in the field), you poo poo it and accuse me of appealing to authority?
Why do you do that yourself, Tarski? Why have all the other DAGW cultists always done that?
Then you turn around and bring up poor old Dr. Singer lone wolf curmudgeon from another era.
He's one of tens of thousands of scientists who do not buy the snake oil (and, for the record, the entire phony "consensus" never even existed anyway, if by that you mean dangerous AGW, so let's come off the high horse, Tarski, and get a bit serious).
To match you I should just poo poo Singer and bring up his denial of the dangers of second hand smoke and so on.
The second-hand smoke hysteria was nothing but more of the standard state ideolotarian warmed-over junk science with policy implications, as anyone who has educated himself on that hokum knows perfectly well (and this is just the tip of a vast iceberg of junk science in the environmental movement and government regulatory apparatus going back a very long time. Entire scholarly and investigative journalistic books have been written on that, which, of course, you have never heard of).
So, while you can't stand the idea of listening to expert,
My entire perspective on the issue, scientifically speaking, has been derived from qualified - and distinguished - experts in the field. My philosophical views have been derived from other experts in that area, as well as my life-long experience, study, and reflection regarding the Left and the history of ideas in general, and the patterns underlying them.
