Willard – I give you credit for trying to answer me to the best of your ability. I will try to do the same for you. I’m sorry you think I was barraging you with questions. I really wanted to know what you were saying.
>I don’t mind much, except for the misconstrual of the concept of skepticism. I don’t think you address that point so far, even if I wrote many comments on it.
I have not been trying to define the concept of “skepticism” or put a flavor on it. I have been trying to talk about a movement. Much as in an example I wrote here if I were talking about the “Tea Party” – I wouldn’t set out to define Tea Party. Or perhaps you remember the religious/social/political men’s movement called the Promise Keepers. Just by using their names I would not be endorsing their integrity more or less than any other men, or men who dislike the Promise Keepers either. By avoiding what I think a is involved in keeping promises I don’t think I would be misconstruing the concept.
For you-I liked the early direction of the Skeptic Movement. I think Richard Feynman embodied a true skeptic as far as a concept goes.
I am sorry the use of “hate” in the title set you off. Maybe it’s just where I grew up. We hated mosquitos, vegetables, homework, some musicians, and the rival sports teams. It was “dramatic” but common language. Perhaps the title should have been “Why the people that are part of the movement that is sometimes identified as Skepticism (who may or may not actually be skeptics-I’m taking no position on that) have grown to be very unappreciative of people who are not sufficiently alarmed by climate projections particularly those who downplay climate concerns in any way.” What I told was a story about a family that I and others once were part of, but because we did not line up with others on our understanding of climate risks and remedies we were forced out. Happily some found it worthwhile. It was expected that not everyone would, but I was surprised how much it troubled some.
