I have to confirm that. All the negative comment directed at me on that thread came from Drooper (and perhaps BobK was in there too but that's another and much longer story).
I really don't know anything about past history here, but as far as this present set of exchanges is concerned, I have only seen AUP react to provocation.
I have no problem at all believing that the recent hurricane has no more to do with climate change than the tsunami. However, every time I turn on the radio or television, I hear people who appear to have respected academic credentials in the field discussion the possibility of a connection as if it were a rational question. I also hear climate change, and the likelihood that this is being caused by human activity, discussed as pretty close to accepted fact, again by those who appear to have respected credentials in the field. So, when I find a vocal group of posters here who take a contrary view, I'm interested to hear what they have to say that might suggest that the scientific consensus as presented to the public has got it so spectacularly wrong.
However, all I hear are insults, playing the man rather than the ball, and ad-hom dismissals of people like the UK Chief Scientific Officer and senior officials at the Meteorological Office as "talking heads", who "aren't good enough". There is also the occasional link to a web site or two, with the sneering assertion that anyone who can't be bothered to go and read that isn't interested. The last time I followed such links I got to that laughable petition, which probably has Donald Duck in there somewhere, being presented as evidence that a solid body of scientific opinion rejects global warming. Thanks, I prefer the talking heads!
Any actual factual discussion which might be in the threads (and I thought I detected some) is pretty much buried in the insults and belligerence, and inevitably coloured by its context.
I have patiently explained the fallacies of homoeopathic practice, and various other altmeddler interventions, on numerous occasions. Patiently, and clearly, going back to first principles when a new poster who clearly doesn't have any background knowledge of the issues joins in. Others regularly do the same. And we'll do it again and again so long as interested newcomers keep joining the debate. I can't say that sniping never happens, as we get fed up with people like Sarah who keep chiming in with the same woo, but by and large more posters prefer to try to explain themselves calmly and clearly, in as basic terms as it takes, to the uncommitted.
Is it so difficult to discuss global warming in this spirit?
Rolfe.
