Crazy is doing the same thing over-and-over and expecting a different result.
Climatedebatedaily.com continues crazy postings trying to establish and prop up a false debate - promoting doubt about global warming. More accurately their own words claim they are debating "Calls to Action" or "Dissenting Voices " (inaction). But that is not the debate I read there.
Their headings actually are saying "Do we act or not?" And I can see a reasonable discussion on that question. But looking at the content on each side, they are not really debating what they claim. Their global warming postings seem to be divided between new science discoveries versus the magical thinking of global warming denialists. Science verses religion is an old, tired debate.
They seem to want to divert and delude us from facing the real issue: human extinction. Do we want to accept it? Maybe they can re-label their standings as a debate like: Pro-extinction and Con-extinction
It is crazy continuing to criticize climatedebatedaily.com. They will
never change. So I am expanding my messaging beyond theirs. It is time to ponder the real issue: "Humans shall persist and thrive - Pro or Con"
They can frame the debate through the selection of materials they choose to post. "... of what ultimately goes onto the page, the editors' decisions are final."
So when I ask them (ClimateDebateDaily.com) to step up and start talking about the real issue - I know that is a crazy request.
Are we a crazy species? That's still another debate.
Climatedebatedaily.com continues crazy postings trying to establish and prop up a false debate - promoting doubt about global warming. More accurately their own words claim they are debating "Calls to Action" or "Dissenting Voices " (inaction). But that is not the debate I read there.
Their headings actually are saying "Do we act or not?" And I can see a reasonable discussion on that question. But looking at the content on each side, they are not really debating what they claim. Their global warming postings seem to be divided between new science discoveries versus the magical thinking of global warming denialists. Science verses religion is an old, tired debate.
They seem to want to divert and delude us from facing the real issue: human extinction. Do we want to accept it? Maybe they can re-label their standings as a debate like: Pro-extinction and Con-extinctionIt is crazy continuing to criticize climatedebatedaily.com. They will
never change. So I am expanding my messaging beyond theirs. It is time to ponder the real issue: "Humans shall persist and thrive - Pro or Con"
They can frame the debate through the selection of materials they choose to post. "... of what ultimately goes onto the page, the editors' decisions are final."
So when I ask them (ClimateDebateDaily.com) to step up and start talking about the real issue - I know that is a crazy request.
Are we a crazy species? That's still another debate.
