As you might by now have guessed, I am far more tolerant of an ignorant man than I am of one who is irrational. The ignorant man can improve himself only by seeking out and finding answers to difficult questions about the world around him. However the irrational man need only stand still and ask questions about himself, which few are inclined to do. For reference, I give you a line from a comment on my previous post.
The commenter observed that I and others like me are always underestimating the ability of man to adapt - in this case to the climate change which he denies is occurring. Really? What strikes me as irrational about this is that I, and others like me, believe that man has the ability to rise up and accept the monumental challenge which climate scientists the world over are posing. As of this date, fossil fuels account for 80% of all the world's energy. Can you imagine how difficult it will be to reduce this figure to 20%? This is an underestimation of man's ability to adapt?
Which brings me back to my original point. Climate skeptics need some explanation for an overwhelming body of evidence which identifies the human contribution to climate change. They've come up with the childish and unremarkable theory that scientists are simply lying. Well, goodness me! One supposes then, in the absence of credible scientific challenges to the theory of AGW, we can always fall back on the answer we gave mom back when she told us spinach was good for us.
I think now I would have been happier if Mr. Gillar had not spared me "from hearing again all the times the scientific consensus has been wrong over the centuries". On what I wonder, and how recently, has a consensus of scientific opinion been wrong on a subject of this scale? Any suggestions Steve?