The Denier

7 Responses to The Denier

1. TinyCO2 says:

   22 April 2014 at 20:12

   Don’t give ’em ideas.
2. catweazle666 says:

   22 April 2014 at 21:33

   Wouldn’t this be nearer the mark?
   http://www.brh.org.uk/site/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/1121.gif
3. Scottish Sceptic says:

   22 April 2014 at 22:02

   But the denier isn’t the one on the cross! just as it was Peter who “denied Christ twice”, so the real deniers weren’t the sceptics who got crucified but those who denied the evidence such as the lack of warming.
   But also it’s a commentary on the way “global warming” has become a religion with its own symbols, its own heretics, dogma, so that the “wind turbine” is now a religious icon equivalent to the cross.
4. manicbeancounter says:

   29 April 2014 at 19:48

   I had long shied away from viewing “climatology” as a pseudo-religion until I looked into the data of Lewandowsky’s opinion surveys recently. The first was from alarmist blogs (the “Hoax” paper) and a later one on the US general population. Compared to the US population, strong believers in “climate science” have very extreme left-environmentalist views. So which is cause and which effect? The evidence from Lew’s papers is that it is the worldview that drives belief in “climate science”. The evidence of common beliefs by the “experts” is confirmation of this scenario.
5. docs.google.com says:

   15 June 2014 at 00:57

   Thanks , I have recently been searching for info about this topic for a long tie
   and youurs is the best I have discovered so far.
   But, what in regards to the bottom line? Are you positive about the supply?

6. Pingback: Key Articles | ScottishSceptic

7. Michael 2 says:

   26 June 2015 at 17:18

   That it had become a religion was evident to me almost immediately after Climategate turned my interest to this topic.
   I’ve been arguing religion since the 1980’s when it was on Compuserve. At $30 per hour and 300 baud the arguments were more carefully composed but it was and remains the same kind of thing. True Believers of a thing not in evidence, and yet sufficient clues exist that can be interpreted as indicating global warming or God.
   Then, once a consensus emerges, arguments then start to fly about the nature of God or the exact magnitude of Transient Climate Response.
   Another similarity is Appeal To Authority: The high priests of global warming, Phil Jones and Michael Mann to name just a few. Their acolytes include John Cook and Stephen Lewandowsky. So who is the supreme being; without whom climate science would still be an academic hobby? That’s probably Maurice Strong.
   Some people will intelligently discuss their reasons for believing or disbelieving; many more will hurl insults back and forth — for them it is tribal and actual truth is so completely irrelevant as to be noise or an absurdity. For some ((me, for instance) it is both at the same time. Tribal benefits exist to believe or at least declare a certain way; but I also have some evidence for my beliefs.

Comments are closed.