Jack Kelly: The great ‘warmist’ caper

“Mr. Revkin is being disingenuous.”

Pittsburgh Post-Gazette columnist Jack Kelly writes:

… The “broader tragedy,” wrote Mr. Revkin, is that Mr. Gleick “has greatly set back any prospects of the country having the ‘rational public debate’ that he wrote — correctly — is so desperately needed.”

Mr. Revkin is being disingenuous. Warmists don’t want a “rational debate.” They want skeptics to shut up and go away…

Read the entire commentary.

One thought on “Jack Kelly: The great ‘warmist’ caper”

  1. So, trust Revkin to define the debate and what is rational? He certainly doesn’t want it any other way than his. Why call for a rational debate rather than on open debate? Warmists are desparate to restrict debate to reducing anthropogenic emissions. And they’re not contemplating Lomborg (concentrate on development instead) as part of that debate. Other than that, the “open minded ones” like Revkin (good cop to Trenberth, Mann, Hansen and Gleick bad cops) would be all for “debate.” I’m not buying this for a millisecond.

    It cannot be a rational debate if that debate has a weak and controverted theory as its “uncontested” basis for drastic involuntary action while also debating what to do about people who won’t debate the “right” things. None of these warmists – none of these science activists or their political brethren – none – contemplate voluntary individual action as any kind of solution. Every man and woman of them consider individucalism to be a problem if not the problem.

Comments are closed.