He's been edging closer to a form of hyper-verbose senility for a few years now but this weekends column in the Globe and Mail takes the cake.
First he decides, explaining himself in far too many words, that the word "denier" can now only be applied to those who deny the Holocaust and the application of said word in any other context denotes extremism in those who use it. "One who denies" is the definition I think he's failing to note. That one's in all the dictionaries. As well as the definition that has to do with measurements of the fineness of various fibres - like the ones tethering the simpering, self-important little weenie to reality I imagine.
Then he asks, in his last para, "Who will undertake the difficult task of sifting the real science from the alarmist advocacy, who will draw the boundaries between climate activism and cold analysis, who will present a statement of the case, as close as reason and science today can make it, to what we actually know and can reasonably project on the basis of what we know?"
Does the dumb fuck have a candidate in mind from a science other than climatology? Someone who knows a lot about - say - nothing to do with climatology?
Or maybe he prefers climatologists who haven't been published in peer reviewed journals in a while?
Or maybe he just likes Willie Soon's ass-trophysics? Who the fuck knows?
What a stoopid assed buggered goofy thing to suggest, Murphy
You just stuck your head so far up your ass that your face is now indistinguishable from a turd after a dinner of beets and red peppers.
I'm not even going to bother copying or linking any of the hundreds of articles in the peer reviewed scientific journals. I'm tired after several years of doing that. What's the fucking point? He obviously doesn't give a flying fuck about the consensus unless it meets his expectations, whatever they are.
Stupid butt headed motherfucker.
Yeah, I'm calling you names you puny little twit creep.