I also used to be very
skeptical about camping.
Not exact matches
He was pushed over the edge by their write - up of Jerome Corsi's latest paranoid fantasy (Obama - run concentration
camps, no doubt intended for conservative «patriots»), but Jon's great sin was encouraging
skeptical and critical thought
about a series of beliefs that some have come to see as true despite all evidence to the contrary.
Is there a way to show enough respect to the opposing argument to engage people so that the litany of
skeptical arguments that are tossed
about can be sequentially addressed and put respectively into the
camps of «confirmed», «need further research» and «debunked»?
This puts me roughly in the same
camp as James Annan, though possibly I am less
skeptical that there could be benefits for moderate warming, and I am probably more
skeptical of claims
about the supposedly significant level of damage from the current level of anthopogenically induced climate change.
I guess I'd add that this is understandable, given that the denier
camp really doesn't have much actual science to use as ammunition or to build their arguments on, and thus they tend to wage their campaign by cherrypicking data, or seeking to attack narrow and often out - of - context passages found in scientific papers or in simplified postings
about those papers found on sites like
Skeptical Science.