It has become not only easy, but almost de rigueur for climate alarmists to retreat to false classification–almost objectification–of their opponents, especially when they cannot respond satisfactorily to arguments made against them. But the classifications are getting more discrete, if not discreet. Where before the hate speech term ‘denier’ was almost enough to serve their needs, now we read of things like ‘Breakthrough-ism’ or ‘Pielke-ism.’ These are dismissive terms for people who are on board with the science but who, like me, will not sign on to the policy proposals trumpeted by the Konsensus, a group of lobbyists, bloggers and a few scientists who are trying to step in front of the very real consensus of scientists regarding climate change.

As is so often the case, my comment at a consensus weblog is in the holy state of perpetual moderation. In this case, the blog is the NewSpeakingly named ‘Open Mind,’ and the post is more aptly titled ‘Talking Points.’

My comment was:

“I’m a lukewarmer who often ends up closer to the skeptical side of arguments than I do the consensus.