cedarford
When you can’t deal with arguments logically you make ad hominen attacks by accusing your adversary of being a member of some group which is generally perceived to be lacking creibility. Jim Baker described your technique perfectly.
If we are going to introduce the pejorative Truther into an argument it applies more logically to yourself and your rock solid belief in AGW – despite all the gathering evidence to the contrary. So why don’t you knock off the projecting and try elevating the dialogue? It may even make me less likely to call you names.
As to your last point the fact that the majority of the academic community currently “buys-in” (great choice of words) to AGW only means they aren’t keeping up with the science. (“The only two arenas that count…” It’s not a popularity contest bozo). And gullable is spelled gullible.
