Anything goes except snark. (Frank, are you listening?) (OK, even that was too snarky…) Skeptics and “skeptics” and “hoaxers” and hoaxees. Anybody and anything related to climate or any other sustainability issue.
After you write, take a deep breath. Imagine saying those exact words. To your cousin. In person. Over dinner at your gramma’s. Now rewrite in such a way that all your aunts and uncles and cousins will listen respectfully. Oh, and in this dream everybody you mention by name is suddenly a distant relative by marriage and is with you at the table.
It turns out that everyone at the table is very interested in what you have to say, but also very interested in how respectfully you say it. A high stakes situation. Bend over backwards to avoid irritating people who disagree with you, and state your case.
The smallest hint of snark will be removed, along with the rest of the comment, to a shadow thread. The email and IP address will be banned from the main thread for the rest of the discussion, but not forever. P3 holds no grudges.
* Is there big oil money in the CAGW (*) naysayer camp?
* Are the IPCC reports true? If not entirely true, does the IPCC systematically understate, or systematically overstate, or have unbiased good faith errors? If unbiased errors, how many degrees of freedom are represented in the error? etc. etc.
* What assertions, if any, can be stipulated by all reasonable people about climate as a physical/chemical system?
* Are we missing sustainability threats larger than climate?
* Are universities mismanaged? Is the peer review system dying? How should publicly funded information be managed?
* Which is really worse: private giant supercorporations, or crown corporations? Can we revive the idea of a mix?
Go for it. Make a case for almost anything short of genocide, but be totally on good behavior or no pie!