- The green movement left me by going off on a total tangent on climate change now the skeptical movement is doing the same things , going off on a tangent away from reason as it too becomes climate change crusaders.

- The "extreme left" hijacked the green movement, now they have hijacked the Scientific Skeptic movement

- Hey Steve Novella, Phil Plait, the Skepchicks, Simon Singh and all the bubble intellectuals there is an ELEPHANT in THE ROOM : the temperature hasn't gone up anything like the IPCC models predicted.... who are the DENIERS ?

- Consider this from David Hume (18th C philosopher)
- When men are most sure and arrogant they are commonly most mistaken, giving views to passion without that proper deliberation which alone can secure them from the grossest absurdities.

- US Intellectuals living in bubble & feeling emotional : As I have discussed before there is "True Believer" psychological behaviour about CACC from people rational about everything else. There has to be a way to let these people come back to reason instead of digging themselves further and further into irrationality ..like norrmal "true believers" do in other matters.

- US Intellectuals : come on snap out of your bubble ! : Have you ever been to a different country & been surprised how different it is to what you expected ? of course you have
So isn't it possibe the Climate thing could be the same and turn out totally different from what you expected ? Well I appeal to you to start imagining that ..come up with a plan B if the temperature doesn't appear to be going into run away catastrophe in 10 years time. Don't get wedded to something you can't defend and hence damage the skeptic movement and science.

Consensus ? Remember : there used to be a consensus that the Earth is flat

- We test hypothesis against observations ..what do you reckon about observations since since 1998 ? Surely certainty should be higher now cos we have 13 years more data and CO2 has increased by 20%
The mantra is .."if CO2 doubles ..certain disaster".. but a 20% increase has produced no increase in temperature" then is 80% more really sure to cause a disaster .. Climate bets anyone ?

- no one said in 1998 "this is an extraordinary peak and it will plateau"

- After I wrote the above article about how to get the science movement back into sanity I got a blog post from Doubtfulnenews I note how Doubtful news rushed to republish the fakegate attack on Heartland straight off the press release from the Eco-PR agency without bothering to check their facts, It's supposed to be a skeptical channel so they SHOULD show some doubt and skepticism before they push the publish button.

- when I tried delicately to say they should apply some critical thinking I was met with a bizarre volley of aggression. "DENIER ! * Propaganda * troll * you'll be banned "

- Jeez what the woman on about ? I often say that climate alarmism is a religion, but when I think I think I understand her reaction
- refusing to think about views from outside your dogma & refusing to talk to people from outside that's not just religious that's thought stopping ..that's what cults do.
- Her behaviour is typical of a cult member ..that's fits with the name calling which dehumanises the "enemy"
...for God's sake woman be scientific don't take anything at face value.

- "Get your own blog she snarls" Firstly all I am trying to do is tactfully nudge her in the right direction.
- to fully analyse the story would take many hours. And 3 or 4 pages Instead a quick 2 sentence summary people expect. ... And there isn't time to do that everyday. the average 1 page takes 40 pages to unpack

- It's not a case of needing to leap to a certain conclusion straight away... Just add it into the pool of info in your mind. Stories have a way of resolving themselves over time.

- Funnily enough this story itself is a great resource for teaching kids about climate science & politics and deconstruct the alarmist movement's tactics.

- I of course waited before posting and then interesting facts emerged setting new context : I note that Climate Scientist Peter Gleick has confessed to fraudulantly obtaining the 2nd set of documents. He pretended to be a Heartland director to obtain them so he could check the document someone had sent him (the one seemingly faked). Well, why didn't he just request that document if he thought it was true. And why does it seem to have been made and scanned after he received the second set ..just as if he forged it ? ..time will tell

PG's confession : "My judgment was blinded by my frustration with the ongoing efforts — often anonymous, well-funded, and coordinated"
- "well funded" the document showed Heartland has a tiny budget of $4.4m ..nowhere near 1% of the audited annual budget of a few of the multinational ecocharities like Greenpeace $300m, WWF $700m, Pew Charitable Trust $360m, Sierra Club $56m (who shout big oil yet once accepted a $26m donation from a gas company)
- note only 1/3 of that $4.4m is targettted on climate change matters & the eco-charities don't spent all their money on it either.

- Climate scientist published something deceptive ...what's new ?

- His signature is one of the 38 adding credibility to the 2nd letter in the WSJ denying the credibility of the "No Need to Panic About Global Warming," letter by 16 other weather & space scientists. They countered in a 3rd letter here

- his Faked Book review

- I further disect Doubtfulnews & Phil Plait's reporting of the Gleick Heartland story over 5 pages
- I summarised the Gleick Heartland story on 1 page

- The impatient : They are certain & have a dogma. They jump to believe anything that confirms dogma. Feeling reassured they don't bother to check facts. Simplicity also appeals to the impatient so rather that deal with complexity conspiracy theories are attractive. The climate alarmists are the impatient so calling out "skeptics are funded by big oil". Name calling is also easy. Their impatience makes them not full of love, but rather full of agression & hate.

- The Patient : Now compare this against the patience of the skeptics. Let's take the time to analyse and look from all angles. For them there is no emotion only logic. There is no need for aggression & name calling partly cos facts can turn out either way so there is no point in taking a side. They believe conspiracies are possible, but there must be evidence so don't jump to conclusions.

- Although off-the-shelf dogmatic belief "ism" systems might seem to provide quick & easy answers it's better everyone has lifelong scientific education & applies the principles of critical thinking including : being open minded, looking at every angle, context, perspective, respect & empathy, checking evidence & checking sources, to every story .
.... These days news is dominated by cut & paste from press releases prepared by PR agencies without critical analysis so you have to apply your own.

- I don't want to tell people WHAT to think, I just want them to think !"

- So think for yourself when you read stories like the one above.
- Especially so if you are a journalist, Instead of cutting & pasting from press releases prepared by PR agencies without critical analysis.

- (FFS it takes 1s to see it's BS ...the emotional bullying tone of that Guardian article she pasted shows it's outright propaganda prepared by a PR agency) Who are the real manipulators ? seems like the green activists
- More : #27 A Quick Deconstruction of the Heartland/Gleick Story, #28 Using the Heartland/Gleick story to teach critical thinking