Had or Simply Gullible?

Instapundit points to a Honolulu Magazine editorial penned by A. Kam Napier titled May Cooler Heads Prevail.

Mr. Napier is put off by the Climategate scandal, stating that “I feel I’ve been had,” and understandbly so I would say.  I welcome the fact that Napier is now expressing his dissatisfaction with the individuals who have been attempting to foist upon the world their green ideology through ruses, faux science, and political force.

Mr. Napier makes one particular statement in his editorial, though, which tends to make him appear gullible, rather than had.

One thing I could not have known in 1996 was that the IPCC’s warming predictions would be wrong.

Gullibility is defined as being “easily duped or cheated,” and when Napier states he ”...could not have known in 1996 that the IPCC’s warming predictions would be wrong.,” he is stating that he fully accepted, without any questioning, IPCC warming predictions data as fact, and if accepting predictions as fact is not gullibility, I don’t know what is.

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 02/04 at 10:02 AM

Name:

Email:

Location:

URL:

Smileys

Remember my personal information

Notify me of follow-up comments?

Submit the word you see below:


Next entry: Wonders of the Brain

Previous entry: I'm a Happy Man

<< Back to main