joan quotes me . . .

“Skeptics are not welcome,”

. . . and replies:

Yes they are as far as i am concerned. But skeptics also need to make a coherent and logical arguement.

Which part of the skeptic’s argument do you find incoherent and/or illogical?

joan continues:

Personally, I am not fully convinced by the global warming argument either.

Are you suggesting that your skepticism is based on the incoherent and illogical arguments of the skeptics? Or are you in possession of information that others haven’t properly weighted?\

joan continues:

I had a little dig at claudia its true, but only when her anti-UN bias clouds her better judgement. I enjoy her posts/ site in any case.

I see Claudia being skeptical of the UN’s institutional honesty; of it’s ability to conduct business transparently; and of its commitment and/or ability to serve the interests of the people it claims to be looking out for.

She certainly has provided a wealth of information which a disinterested, objective third party could easily conclude was a rational basis for skepticism. This is hardly bias.

Are you sure you haven’t conflated “bias” and “skepticism?”

Brian