Exactly

Bjorn Lomborg went on Bill Maher's show recently, talking about global warming. Or is that Global Warming? Anyway, he stated GW is real and a problem, but not a crisis and gave what he sees as a better way to deal it than is usually suggested. Is he right? I don't know, but he certainly isn't denying GW, nor is he being complicated, nor advising non-action. Maher and his guests reacted like he denies GW and like he was saying some bizarre confusing shit. At first these reactions confused me, but I think Scott Adams hit the nail on the head here, and helped me see what's going on. I guess people take not screaming that GW is going to kill us in 10 years as denying it, and suggesting alternative remedies as weird. Sigh. Making clear distinctions between right and wrong is great and necessary, but people seem to not be able to distinguish when it's appropriate and when it's not.