Shouldn't people who want to be called 'skeptics' be, you know, skeptical about something?
Calzada claimed that he received a package with a return address from a solar energy company. He claims to have called them up, and they told him it was "their answer to my energy pieces." Apparently being either exceptionally paraonid and/or perceiving this as a death threat - from a solar energy company - Calzada claims to have contacted a terrorism expert, who scanned the box and opened it, revealing a dismantled bomb. Supposedly this was a warning - the next one would explode.
Now reading this story, your bullsh!t detector might go off. Why would anybody put their return address on a package containing a dismantled bomb? Why would Calzada immediately be so concerned as to contact a "terrorism expert"? Why would the terrorism expert even bother to investigate this package from a solar power company? And why was this story completely ignored by everyone except the right-wing media and denier blogs?
Not surprisingly, this story turned out to be a complete fraud. But that didn't stop the supposed 'skeptics' at Watts' blog from not only posting it, but from buying the clearly bogus story without question. Here are some of the first blog comments:
"There is really no other way to look at the situation. The AGW industry has become an organized crime syndicate."
"And then they wonder why scientist not swallowing the AGW scam are not coming out in the light… those are still dangerous times to speak out, it seams."
"Blacklists,bombthreats,these are acts of terror and not a peep from MSM !!"
Not until the tenth comment does a single 'skeptic' exhibit any sort of skepticism about this utterly transparent story. Shouldn't people who want to be called 'skeptics' be, you know, skeptical about something?