a second page about the psychology of greens shouting denier

Trying to talk to warmists

- Essay by Pointman Big Green Consequences

Shouting denier is a form of bullying by taking offence

- 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.

Commenting on an article

- What an appalling article.
- It and most of the comments are a terrible indication of the state of CRITICAL THINKING in 2013 .. CHECKLIST you can quickly see the item is bunk
1. the doctored photo power station TRICK *

2. It uses the term "denialist" * 3. And the name on the New Paper is Stephan Lewandowsky - 2012 Paper "basically RETRACTED", & in the 2013 paer is in a similar situation Retraction Watch

* Both of these TRICKs show the writer is a poor debater & are a form of AD HOMINEM attack attacking a perceived other side rather that making their own case on facts.
It would seem that the author perceives the climate debate as TRIBAL ..with a Good & a Bad side ..so as you can see who is exhibiting TribalISM. The CONSPIRACY THEORY behaviour ..it is him . This PROJECTION of your own flaws onto perceived opponents is quite typical of people in the climate debate who are CERTAIN beyond EVIDENCE.
- As @MacUser said We love Science, but Science isn't science when it is JUST "peer reviewed" it is Science when it is VALIDATED.
- Ask yourself "could I be trapped in a cult ?" ..then SNAP out of it face up to the difficulty that the world is not B & W simple, but rather Full Colour Complex
..So start to think a critically again and help build science.

People Trying to talk to warmists

- moderately supports me Article : denialism-skepticism-and-science Despite my sympathies with some of the work that science writers are doing in opposition to “denialism,” the concept behind it is highly problematic: it is redundant, licenses bias and skirting the burden of proof, and encourages labeling to excuse intellectual disengagement. Ultimately the concept is incoherent, since it permits a conflation of some forms of legitimate skepticism

Another Example"DaveC's use of the term "denialism" demonstrates that these are really issues of faith to him, not science. In science all premises are challengeable, including the most revered. The sacred Newton was challenged by Einstein. Neither is the interpretation of data considered sacred -- unlike as in DaveC's "-ism" paradigm. Re-examination of data regarding Mercury's orbit was a clue to Einstein about gravitational effects on time.

- Most telling is this: if the data are so compelling, there would be no need to push the agenda with innuendo about "-isms"."

- "How odd. It would surely have been easy enough for the author and legions of commentators on this science blog to prove me wrong- and educate me in the process- by linking to peer-reviewed consensus science. Instead, they prefer censorship, the simple removal of any dissenting views, thus ensuring their blog remains a kowtowing echo-chamber."

- The way people speak here is so aggressive it will make people want to turn against them

My Comments
- It certainly makes me feel like going out and doing something to annoy "these crazy people" maybe go and join the consumer society, join a large company, buy a large SUV make a lot of CO2 producing kids whereas upto now in 46 years of life I have been absolute minimalist never having owned a car, a house , and being totally opposed to the idea of having children, making fires in the nature etc. and my most expensive possession ever being a smartphone I bought in the year 2000 for $480

Extra Notes
- Papal infallibility Mann infallibility

- Thought exercise about how level of CO2 has been 10 times higher in mammals history
Bob has had 16 pints at a party before ..but didn't cause too much trouble
- now he's been teetotal for a while but year after year his drinking has increased now he drinks 4 pints every party.
- But now the greens are arguing that we should get the police to come to the party and make sure Bob doesn't drink more than 4 pints .. parallel with the climate i.e. now CO2 is at a higher level than recently but much lower than in long term history, we panic and call for policing

- yes agree with the state of climate debate on this page
- good blog about correcting education brainwashing what 97%? you know science you define your terms
You know really There is no 97%

- Global Warming means the poles have melted and you can now DRIVE from Russia to the North pole and to Canada ..they mean sail don't they ?

- solar not economic even in Florida ..IN REAL operation much more expensive than gas or nuclear

The whole idea of there being a thing called denialism

- Do you have any independently audited figs for your own carbon footprint ..if you can't cut back why should the taxpayer ?

THANKS If you find some useful info here then click to easily/safely send me a Paypal TIP

1 2834 5 6 7 9 10

a Stew Green opinion
Out of the box thinking
- from someone who was never in the box in the first place
moved from the USEFUL BLOG to the REALITY CHECK BLOG

NEXT -->