A few times I've seen people compliment Jim Z for the quality of the content of his answers on Yahoo Answers. One person even suggested that it would be nice if he participated on our discussion forum here. This puzzles me a bit, because Jim's answers basically consist of "global warming is a scam, and I'm a geologist so I know!". In a recent question I asked about whether we should continue to rely on fossil fuels (specifically coal power plants), Jim's response was
"You don't like coal precisely because it is available to us. With leftists, it is more about limiting our economy. You people won't be happy until we are shooting bow and arrows at... Wait, you won't let us do that anymore. You won't be happy unless we are back in the woods picking berries....Wait, that isn't allowed either. We might interfere with the mating habits of the Western Arroyo Toad. Why don't we all agree that you won't be happy period.
No other country would willingly discard its available energy resources but that is precisely what the left wants us to do. It isn't about global warming. It is about leftists political nonsense."
I mean come on, not only can the guy not agree that we shouldn't continue our reliance on coal and other fossil fuels, but his answer is nothing more than a paranoid political rant!
I can't say he's the least tolerable - I'll give that to Jello for his combination of stupid answers, cheating the voting system, impersonating others, abusing the reporting system, and the fact that the other deniers worship him.
I think the most tolerable is probably Eric C. Although his source is usually some biased site like ICECAP, at least he tries to make scientific arguments, and his political rants are usually pretty minimal. Plus as far as I can tell, he doesn't play games like Jello and James E and other deniers do.
Who are your most and least tolerable "skeptics"? For those who don't participate on Yahoo Answers, feel free to chime in with examples of people you know who are skeptical of man-made global warming.