[chrishoney]

people who question climate change theory are called "deniers", and frankly it pisses me off.

WARNING: ad hominem attack in the next three paragraphs. Read no further if it upsets your delicate sensibilities.

I think the correct term for those folks is "idiots" but deniers will do since they are clearly in denial of reality. There is copious, strong and compelling scientific evidence to support human caused global warming. The deniers cannot make the same claim.

Perhaps you missed this story on a study recently published:

http://www.newsleader.com/article/20130317/OPINION/303170014/Earth-warming-faster

Oh, but wait...that's right, I forgot, all the scientists around the world studying this are obviously in collusion on the grandest of all conspiracy theories. (just think of the millions each of them is supposedly making promulgating this theory. Oh my, it boggles the mind!) Honestly, can you really call yourself intelligent and maintain the 'denier' position? Even that bastion of right wing-nuttiness, Forbes.com believes the evidence supporting global warming (http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2013/03/10/what-excellent-news-earth-warmer-than-in-most-of-the-past-11300-years/), so where does that leave you? Out in the cold? No, wait, I guess that's out in the heat now, right?

So, am I advocating you shouldn't be able to have your say? Not on your life! At this point, denying global warming is pretty much equal to saying creationism is 'science' or that the earth is flat, perched on the back of a giant tortoise, or that the sun revolves around the earth (but you KNOW that's true, because you can see the sun going around us daily! I swear!) I defend your right to promulgate your own brand of wing nuttiness, be it denying global warming or defending a right wingnut's hate speech. The same way I and anyone else have a right to heap approbation on you for those same bizarre viewpoints.

The petition to have Littlejohn removed from his public pulpit IS free speech being expressed by those outraged by his column. Is the petition binding? Will it compel the Mail to do anything? Of course not, so why do you want to curtail the free speech of those that find his moronic ideology morally offensive, and yet let him off the hook? Don't they have the right to ask/petition him to be removed from such a position? Do you seriously think he will not be able to make a living even if the Mail bows to public opinion and fires him? Give me friggin' a break. Even if he does get sacked, is it like he will never again in his life write another word and get paid WAY too much for what, pseudo-intellectual drool?

Finally, you have the annoying habit of interpreting ANY criticism of your point of view as a personal attack. Free speech does NOT give you the right of objection-free pontificating. If you can't take the heat, don't express what you KNOW will be controversial opinions that garner contempt and derision from many who read them. Sound familiar? Perhaps something like:

"they might have warned the teacher that the parents may have had a bad reaction."

Now, I know you're going to flame me for this, and frankly I say "have at it!" Personally, I wouldn't give a rat's ass (I'm not sure what exactly that means but it sounds righteously inflammatory, doesn't it?) for your opinion of me or what I think, so do your best...errr...worst....ah, whatever......