I left the following comment at http://lemonspot.wordpress.com/2011/01/15/climate-denialist-cult-gets-abusive
I know a lot of people who question the degree of evidence for AGW or explore the lack of it, but I have never met any person in this category who treats it as a religion.
Well there is always a first time for everything!
Anyway I tried to draw this guy out into a discussion of what AGW facts there are and to take an unbiased look at some scientific facts and proofs.
Please judge for yourself if he has confidence in his “faith” and whether he actually knows anything!
It is interesting that he is the one claiming that we are a religious cult considering him and other followers are the ones making the assertions.
What about alarmist cultists then?
You should check out the comments and replies at this blog http://greenfyre.wordpress.com/dunces-corner-this-is-what-denierism-looks-like and then browse through this one http://www.globalwarmingsupporter.wordpress.com to see what sort of response I get when I politely question some relevant facts.
I will post this conversation at http://www.globalwarmingsupporter.wordpress.com as well so my readers can gauge your answer.
Needless to say, a non reply will be noted by my readers as well.
January 15, 2011 at 3:19 pm
I’ve dealt with what you refer to alarmist cultists in earlier posts, that neither they nor you accept that they are part of a quasi-religous cult is hardly surprising. As for the blog you include a link to, while mildly abusive it doesn’t contain anything like the level of abuse that has been directed at Professor Abraham and others who contradict your faith belief. Having said that, I certainly don’t approve of its approach either. The appropriate means of dealing with denialism is to point out the techniques that are being used. Denialists regardless of what they choose to deny (and that includes those who deny the possibility that AGW may be wrong, although they have a slight advantage in not needing to deny a scientific consensus) use the same basic techniques.
* 1. Allege that there’s a conspiracy. Claim that scientific consensus has arisen through collusion rather than the accumulation of evidence.
* 2. Use fake experts to support your story. “Denial always starts with a cadre of pseudo-experts with some credentials that create a facade of credibility,”
* 3. Cherry-pick the evidence: trumpet whatever appears to support your case and ignore or rubbish the rest. Carry on trotting out supportive evidence even after it has been discredited.
* 4. Create impossible standards for your opponents. Claim that the existing evidence is not good enough and demand more. If your opponent comes up with evidence you have demanded, move the goalposts.
* 5. Use logical fallacies. Hitler opposed smoking, so anti-smoking measures are Nazi. Deliberately misrepresent the scientific consensus and then knock down your straw man.
* 6. Manufacture doubt. Falsely portray scientists as so divided that basing policy on their advice would be premature. Insist “both sides” must be heard and cry censorship when “dissenting” arguments or experts are rejected.
More information on denialsm in all its forms can be found at http://scienceblogs.com/denialism/about.php or read Freud who originally described it. The European Journal of Public Health Vol 19 P2, is also well worth a read
You would accept standard scientific evidential techniques then?
No, I’m not open to conversion to any religous belief, whenever someone makes that kind of comment, they inevitably follow it what they consider to be proof of their faith and it is always selective.
January 16, 2011 at 1:14 am
Would you consider yourself to have an open mind then?
According to Richard Dawkins everyone should have an open mind about everything but not so open your brain falls out. Its not a description I object to provided one doesn’t try to infer too much from it.
January 16, 2011 at 4:14 am
I infer from that that your mind is closed then?
No wrong inference, there’s an inbuilt assumption in the question as to the nature of science which is fundamentally incorrect.
January 16, 2011 at 5:32 am
Well you could have answered by saying “Yes” or “No”
But since you seem to be saying that your mind IS open, could you please explain why you are adverse to looking at some standard scientific facts and proof techniques?
You’re not doing science, you’re doing religion, science isn’t capable of providing the kind of answers you and indeed, most people want, only religion can provide the kind of definitive answers you want and I don’t do religion and neither does science. Of course the thing about the definitive answers religion provides is that it provides different people with different definitive answers and since religion is a matter oif belief the differences can never be resolved so you religous types will be able to carry on arguing and trying to gain new converts for ever or at least until some new religion takes your fancy.
January 16, 2011 at 9:10 pm
Thats somewhat prejudicial, I assure you that I have both an open mind and rely on scientific facts and methods only.
Why are you so afraid of being faced with some of these then?
I think you should probably go and joint he Moonies or some similar cult, I think you’ll find that you fit in very well and you’ve already got the patter off to a tee.
Well I have to say that I have never seen anyone do so much acrobatics in order to avoid talking about a few facts.
I also have to say that my readers just love this exchange.
The fact is, if you are so unable to engage in a discussion of the facts, to everyone rational reading these comments, what credibilty you may have had has certainly been disolved in their eyes.
BTW I did watch some of Monckton’s repudiations of Abraham’s criticism. If Abraham did behave like that, (and I will try and check his script as well), he very well does deserve to be censured in some way for his departure from academic and scientific practice.
spotthelemon said 3 hours ago:When the Mormons come to my door, as they sometimes do, I turn them away and don’t take any of their literature, if I wanted to find out about their religion then I would seek out and analyse the information for myself, I see no reason to treat you any differently.
When cults indoctrinate people they almost invariably instruct their followers that they have been given special knowledge sometimes referred to in the literature as “Sacred Science”, anyone outside who doesn’t accept the special knowledge is labelled “unscientific” or too ignorant to understand the ‘sacred Science’. Everything you’ve said is absolute textbook stuff for someone who has been indoctrinated by a cult. So textbook in fact that I wondered if you were one of our psych students regurgitating some of his notes as a joke. As it is I’m probably going to get told off for loon baiting.
Comments were closed after this comment.
In a comment that he spammed I also suggested that he view this video.
It is not known if he viewed it or not.
Tags: AGW, alarmist, Anthropogenic, Anthropogenic Climate Change, bombarded by porkies, Children Ambassadors for AGW, contrarian, Denialist, denier, Emissions Trading Scheme, ETS, Global Warming, Global Warming or is it global cooling, Hasn't Anybody Heard of the Medieval Warm Period?, Medieval Warm Period, Ocean Levels Rising, porkies, UN World Government, unscientific