- This is an example of BULLYING BY TAKING OFFENCE and it should not be tolerated, because it is impossible to have free speech if there is no right to offend.. cos otherwise you can close down any debate.
- I say something, then instead of addressing my points, you sidestep and say "that offended me. " and then move onto attack me.
- Actually I am just doing some research into this word "denialism" , seems to me by the logic of Popper the whole concept of it existing is a pseudoscience. It's a one of those things that doesn't have a proper definition and is just twisted to mean "the act of disagreeing with what I say" . You can't get more ANTI-SCIENCE than making up terms that don't really exist and then using them to close down debate, which is an intrinsic part of VALIDATING science.
- Creating a term denialism is a conspiracy theory itself
- commenting3. macuser Using terms like “denialist” takes the place of rational thinking. Those terms are entirely emotion-based. This polemic even begins with the words “Climate change denial”. But who “denies” climate change??
-The true climate change deniers are those who believe in the thoroughly debunked nonsense emitted by Michael Mann — who has specifically denied, in writing, that the climate ever changed prior to the industrial revolution. He was so wrong that the journal Science was forced to issue a rare Correction to MBH98. And they hate to issue Corrections.
-I cannot believe what a propaganda screed SciAm became, after it was bought by its current owners. There is no longer any objective science in this pop culture magazine.