Studies on Denialism as a cult

[mamooth]

A couple of new studies pointing out the obvious, which is how denialism is just one aspect of the extreme-right-wing-fringe political cult.

NASA Faked the Moon Landing?Therefore, (Climate) Science Is a Hoax
---
Our findings parallel those of previous work and show that endorsement of free-market economics predicted rejection of climate science. Endorsement of free markets also predicted the rejection of other established scientific findings, such as the facts that HIV causes AIDS and that smoking causes lung cancer.
---

Political ideology affects energy-efficiency attitudes and choices
---
In a real-choice context, more conservative individuals were less likely to purchase a more expensive energy-efficient light bulb when it was labeled with an environmental message than when it was unlabeled.
---

Says a lot about the mentality of the cultists. They will deliberately make a choice that damages themselves economically, just so they can damage the environment. Why? Because, in the manner of surly teenagers, their primary goal is to proudly demonstrate how no one can stop them from behaving badly.

 

[emilynghiem]

What causes denial and projection of blame on others is
UNFORGIVENESS of conflicts, and projecting such biases from the past
onto future relations and situations.

Studies on "Forgiveness" that show a correlation with better mental health
can also be applied to showing more effectiveness in resolving political
and religious issues and differences.

it can easily be documented by statistical data if necessary
to show a correlation between people who can't forgive conflicts
and being in denial of their own faults and projecting blame externally on others.

A couple of new studies pointing out the obvious, which is how denialism is just one aspect of the extreme-right-wing-fringe political cult.

NASA Faked the Moon Landing?Therefore, (Climate) Science Is a Hoax
---
Our findings parallel those of previous work and show that endorsement of free-market economics predicted rejection of climate science. Endorsement of free markets also predicted the rejection of other established scientific findings, such as the facts that HIV causes AIDS and that smoking causes lung cancer.
---

Political ideology affects energy-efficiency attitudes and choices
---
In a real-choice context, more conservative individuals were less likely to purchase a more expensive energy-efficient light bulb when it was labeled with an environmental message than when it was unlabeled.
---

Says a lot about the mentality of the cultists. They will deliberately make a choice that damages themselves economically, just so they can damage the environment. Why? Because, in the manner of surly teenagers, their primary goal is to proudly demonstrate how no one can stop them from behaving badly.

 

[depotoo]

So silly. AGW followers could be classified as a cult, ya know.

A great or excessive devotion or dedication to some person, idea, or thing...

 

[Oddball]

Good thing the warmerists don't project.....much.

 

[RollingThunder]

So silly. AGW followers could be classified as a cult, ya know.

A great or excessive devotion or dedication to some person, idea, or thing...

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL.....too funny....when you're a member, as you obviously are, poopytoo, of an anti-science fringe cult of duped lunatics and ignorant idiots (i.e. - the astroturfed cult of AGW denial) saying that the majority of the population AND virtually the entire world scientific community "can be classified as a cult" is just further evidence of your insanity.

 

[mamooth]

Well, when someone is dumb enough to say they're going to burn extra gasoline just to piss off the liberals, they're not just cultists. They're retards. Damaging yourself for no gain is just plain stupid, but most of the denialists here proudly announce their intent to do so.

You don't see any non-cultists economically damaging themselves for the sole purpose of pissing someone off. Though the denialists aren't actually pissing anyone off. They're just making everyone correctly classify them as members of a retard political cult, a cult that tells its members that acting like a surly teenager is admirable.

 

[skookerasbil]

Thats right......the deniers are cultists!!!

And as we all know, cultists have zero political clout because, well, they are cultists.


Which means, later this year when climate legislation comes up for a vote, it should pass with the ease of a chip shot field goal!!!


Although one might consider........the opinion of the author of this thread might be pure fiction........because according to US News and World Report, Generation X doesnt give a shit about global warming!!!!

Report: Generation X Doesn't Care About Climate Change - US News and World Report


So......who exactly is the fringe here??

 

[skookerasbil]

 

[depotoo]

So silly. AGW followers could be classified as a cult, ya know.

A great or excessive devotion or dedication to some person, idea, or thing...

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL.....too funny....when you're a member, as you obviously are, poopytoo, of an anti-science fringe cult of duped lunatics and ignorant idiots (i.e. - the astroturfed cult of AGW denial) saying that the majority of the population AND virtually the entire world scientific community "can be classified as a cult" is just further evidence of your insanity.

anti-science you say? You don't know me from Adam, yet you claim you do.
What you don't support is the FACT that science, through research changes consistently.
I also know that a consortium of 2000 scientists does not represent the bulk of all scientists either, as claimed by the AGW's.

You might actually want to look into the actual surveys and their methods.

 

[RollingThunder]

So silly. AGW followers could be classified as a cult, ya know.

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL.....too funny....when you're a member, as you obviously are, poopytoo, of an anti-science fringe cult of duped lunatics and ignorant idiots (i.e. - the astroturfed cult of AGW denial) saying that the majority of the population AND virtually the entire world scientific community "can be classified as a cult" is just further evidence of your insanity.

anti-science you say? You don't know me from Adam, yet you claim you do.

Everybody 'knows' you through your moronic posts. You can't say idiotic things without getting known to be an clueless idiot.

What you don't support is the FACT that science, through research changes consistently.

Science advances through research and sometimes old paradigms are overturned but that doesn't mean that the basic scientific understanding of reality in any particular area of science "changes constantly". There is no real disagreement in the world scientific community on the reality and dangers of anthropogenic global warming, nor has any new research come along that changes any of the basic understandings of the mechanisms and processes of AGW.

I also know that a consortium of 2000 scientists does not represent the bulk of all scientists either, as claimed by the AGW's.

You seem to think you know a number of things that are, in fact, lies and misinformation that have funneled into your head by the propaganda campaign that the fossil fuel industry has sponsored to confuse the public about the actual high level of scientific agreement on this subject. It is not just some "consortium of 2000 scientists" who are in agreement on AGW, it is virtually the entire world scientific community.

Scientific opinion on climate change
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The scientific opinion on climate change is that the Earth's climate system is unequivocally warming, and it is more than 90% certain that humans are causing it through activities that increase concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, such as deforestation and burning fossil fuels.[1][2][3][4] This scientific consensus is expressed in synthesis reports, by scientific bodies of national or international standing, and by surveys of opinion among climate scientists. Individual scientists, universities, and laboratories contribute to the overall scientific opinion via their peer-reviewed publications, and the areas of collective agreement and relative certainty are summarised in these high level reports and surveys.

National and international science academies and scientific societies have assessed the current scientific opinion, in particular on recent global warming. These assessments have largely followed or endorsed the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) position of January 2001 which states:

An increasing body of observations gives a collective picture of a warming world and other changes in the climate system... There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities.[5]​

The main conclusions of the IPCC Working Group I on global warming were the following:

1. The global average surface temperature has risen 0.6 ± 0.2 °C since the late 19th century, and 0.17 °C per decade in the last 30 years.[6]
2. "There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities", in particular emissions of the greenhouse gases carbon dioxide and methane.[7]
3. If greenhouse gas emissions continue the warming will also continue, with temperatures projected to increase by 1.4 °C to 5.8 °C between 1990 and 2100. Accompanying this temperature increase will be increases in some types of extreme weather and a projected sea level rise.[8] From IPCC Working Group II: On balance the impacts of global warming will be significantly negative, especially for larger values of warming.[9]​

No scientific body of national or international standing maintains a formal opinion dissenting from any of these three main points; the last was the American Association of Petroleum Geologists, which in 2007 updated its 1999 statement rejecting the likelihood of human influence on recent climate with its current non-committal position.[10][11] Some other organizations, primarily those focusing on geology, also hold non-committal positions.

You might actually want to look into the actual surveys and their methods.

You might want to jerk your head out of the rightwingnut media echo chamber and read the actual scientific conclusions of the actual climate scientists and not just the spin and lies you've been falling for.

 

[skookerasbil]

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL.....too funny....when you're a member, as you obviously are, poopytoo, of an anti-science fringe cult of duped lunatics and ignorant idiots (i.e. - the astroturfed cult of AGW denial) saying that the majority of the population AND virtually the entire world scientific community "can be classified as a cult" is just further evidence of your insanity.

anti-science you say? You don't know me from Adam, yet you claim you do.

Everybody 'knows' you through your moronic posts. You can't say idiotic things without getting known to be an clueless idiot.





Science advances through research and sometimes old paradigms are overturned but that doesn't mean that the basic scientific understanding of reality in any particular area of science "changes constantly". There is no real disagreement in the world scientific community on the reality and dangers of anthropogenic global warming, nor has any new research come along that changes any of the basic understandings of the mechanisms and processes of AGW.

I also know that a consortium of 2000 scientists does not represent the bulk of all scientists either, as claimed by the AGW's.

You seem to think you know a number of things that are, in fact, lies and misinformation that have funneled into your head by the propaganda campaign that the fossil fuel industry has sponsored to confuse the public about the actual high level of scientific agreement on this subject. It is not just some "consortium of 2000 scientists" who are in agreement on AGW, it is virtually the entire world scientific community.

Scientific opinion on climate change
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The scientific opinion on climate change is that the Earth's climate system is unequivocally warming, and it is more than 90% certain that humans are causing it through activities that increase concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, such as deforestation and burning fossil fuels.[1][2][3][4] This scientific consensus is expressed in synthesis reports, by scientific bodies of national or international standing, and by surveys of opinion among climate scientists. Individual scientists, universities, and laboratories contribute to the overall scientific opinion via their peer-reviewed publications, and the areas of collective agreement and relative certainty are summarised in these high level reports and surveys.

National and international science academies and scientific societies have assessed the current scientific opinion, in particular on recent global warming. These assessments have largely followed or endorsed the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) position of January 2001 which states:

An increasing body of observations gives a collective picture of a warming world and other changes in the climate system... There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities.[5]​

The main conclusions of the IPCC Working Group I on global warming were the following:

1. The global average surface temperature has risen 0.6 ± 0.2 °C since the late 19th century, and 0.17 °C per decade in the last 30 years.[6]
2. "There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities", in particular emissions of the greenhouse gases carbon dioxide and methane.[7]
3. If greenhouse gas emissions continue the warming will also continue, with temperatures projected to increase by 1.4 °C to 5.8 °C between 1990 and 2100. Accompanying this temperature increase will be increases in some types of extreme weather and a projected sea level rise.[8] From IPCC Working Group II: On balance the impacts of global warming will be significantly negative, especially for larger values of warming.[9]​

No scientific body of national or international standing maintains a formal opinion dissenting from any of these three main points; the last was the American Association of Petroleum Geologists, which in 2007 updated its 1999 statement rejecting the likelihood of human influence on recent climate with its current non-committal position.[10][11] Some other organizations, primarily those focusing on geology, also hold non-committal positions.

You might actually want to look into the actual surveys and their methods.

You might want to jerk your head out of the rightwingnut media echo chamber and read the actual scientific conclusions of the actual climate scientists and not just the spin and lies you've been falling for.

This meathead is calling people "clueless idiots"!!!

He is also using Wikki as a reference on the intanets!!!

 

[RollingThunder]

This meathead is calling people "clueless idiots"!!!

LOLOLOLOL....indeed I do and with very good reasons, and you, kookie, are one of the best examples of a completely clueless and totally retarded idiot that I could possibly find.

 

[depotoo]

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL.....too funny....when you're a member, as you obviously are, poopytoo, of an anti-science fringe cult of duped lunatics and ignorant idiots (i.e. - the astroturfed cult of AGW denial) saying that the majority of the population AND virtually the entire world scientific community "can be classified as a cult" is just further evidence of your insanity.

anti-science you say? You don't know me from Adam, yet you claim you do.

Everybody 'knows' you through your moronic posts. You can't say idiotic things without getting known to be an clueless idiot.





Science advances through research and sometimes old paradigms are overturned but that doesn't mean that the basic scientific understanding of reality in any particular area of science "changes constantly". There is no real disagreement in the world scientific community on the reality and dangers of anthropogenic global warming, nor has any new research come along that changes any of the basic understandings of the mechanisms and processes of AGW.

I also know that a consortium of 2000 scientists does not represent the bulk of all scientists either, as claimed by the AGW's.

You seem to think you know a number of things that are, in fact, lies and misinformation that have funneled into your head by the propaganda campaign that the fossil fuel industry has sponsored to confuse the public about the actual high level of scientific agreement on this subject. It is not just some "consortium of 2000 scientists" who are in agreement on AGW, it is virtually the entire world scientific community.

Scientific opinion on climate change
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The scientific opinion on climate change is that the Earth's climate system is unequivocally warming, and it is more than 90% certain that humans are causing it through activities that increase concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, such as deforestation and burning fossil fuels.[1][2][3][4] This scientific consensus is expressed in synthesis reports, by scientific bodies of national or international standing, and by surveys of opinion among climate scientists. Individual scientists, universities, and laboratories contribute to the overall scientific opinion via their peer-reviewed publications, and the areas of collective agreement and relative certainty are summarised in these high level reports and surveys.

National and international science academies and scientific societies have assessed the current scientific opinion, in particular on recent global warming. These assessments have largely followed or endorsed the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) position of January 2001 which states:

An increasing body of observations gives a collective picture of a warming world and other changes in the climate system... There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities.[5]​

The main conclusions of the IPCC Working Group I on global warming were the following:

1. The global average surface temperature has risen 0.6 ± 0.2 °C since the late 19th century, and 0.17 °C per decade in the last 30 years.[6]
2. "There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities", in particular emissions of the greenhouse gases carbon dioxide and methane.[7]
3. If greenhouse gas emissions continue the warming will also continue, with temperatures projected to increase by 1.4 °C to 5.8 °C between 1990 and 2100. Accompanying this temperature increase will be increases in some types of extreme weather and a projected sea level rise.[8] From IPCC Working Group II: On balance the impacts of global warming will be significantly negative, especially for larger values of warming.[9]​

No scientific body of national or international standing maintains a formal opinion dissenting from any of these three main points; the last was the American Association of Petroleum Geologists, which in 2007 updated its 1999 statement rejecting the likelihood of human influence on recent climate with its current non-committal position.[10][11] Some other organizations, primarily those focusing on geology, also hold non-committal positions.

You might actually want to look into the actual surveys and their methods.

You might want to jerk your head out of the rightwingnut media echo chamber and read the actual scientific conclusions of the actual climate scientists and not just the spin and lies you've been falling for.

hey, you might actually want to go find the actual reports of the surveys and their criteria used. And, dear, I do not listen to any media to get my information.

 

[RollingThunder]

Science advances through research and sometimes old paradigms are overturned but that doesn't mean that the basic scientific understanding of reality in any particular area of science "changes constantly". There is no real disagreement in the world scientific community on the reality and dangers of anthropogenic global warming, nor has any new research come along that changes any of the basic understandings of the mechanisms and processes of AGW.

You seem to think you know a number of things that are, in fact, lies and misinformation that have funneled into your head by the propaganda campaign that the fossil fuel industry has sponsored to confuse the public about the actual high level of scientific agreement on this subject. It is not just some "consortium of 2000 scientists" who are in agreement on AGW, it is virtually the entire world scientific community.

Scientific opinion on climate change
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The scientific opinion on climate change is that the Earth's climate system is unequivocally warming, and it is more than 90% certain that humans are causing it through activities that increase concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, such as deforestation and burning fossil fuels.[1][2][3][4] This scientific consensus is expressed in synthesis reports, by scientific bodies of national or international standing, and by surveys of opinion among climate scientists. Individual scientists, universities, and laboratories contribute to the overall scientific opinion via their peer-reviewed publications, and the areas of collective agreement and relative certainty are summarised in these high level reports and surveys.

National and international science academies and scientific societies have assessed the current scientific opinion, in particular on recent global warming. These assessments have largely followed or endorsed the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) position of January 2001 which states:

An increasing body of observations gives a collective picture of a warming world and other changes in the climate system... There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities.[5]​

The main conclusions of the IPCC Working Group I on global warming were the following:

1. The global average surface temperature has risen 0.6 ± 0.2 °C since the late 19th century, and 0.17 °C per decade in the last 30 years.[6]
2. "There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities", in particular emissions of the greenhouse gases carbon dioxide and methane.[7]
3. If greenhouse gas emissions continue the warming will also continue, with temperatures projected to increase by 1.4 °C to 5.8 °C between 1990 and 2100. Accompanying this temperature increase will be increases in some types of extreme weather and a projected sea level rise.[8] From IPCC Working Group II: On balance the impacts of global warming will be significantly negative, especially for larger values of warming.[9]​

No scientific body of national or international standing maintains a formal opinion dissenting from any of these three main points; the last was the American Association of Petroleum Geologists, which in 2007 updated its 1999 statement rejecting the likelihood of human influence on recent climate with its current non-committal position.[10][11] Some other organizations, primarily those focusing on geology, also hold non-committal positions.

You might want to jerk your head out of the rightwingnut media echo chamber and read the actual scientific conclusions of the actual climate scientists and not just the spin and lies you've been falling for.

hey, you might actually want to go find the actual reports of the surveys and their criteria used.

Are you blind, as well as retarded? I just cited the 'survey' that counts the most:

No scientific body of national or international standing maintains a formal opinion dissenting from any of these three main points

And, dear, I do not listen to any media to get my information.

LOLOLOLOL.....so, as I suspected, you either make up your "facts" or you pull them out of your butt.

 

[whitehall]

"NASA faked the moon landing therefore (climate) science is a hoax" so global warming skeptics must believe the same thing and be part of a cult. This is a perfect example of the crazy assumptions that the wacky warmists come up with. It's what we have been talking about all this time. The alleged "scientists" assume crazy stuff like this and fudge data to support their crazy theories. The whole wacky warmer world is full of this stuff.

 

[Mertex]

A couple of new studies pointing out the obvious, which is how denialism is just one aspect of the extreme-right-wing-fringe political cult.

NASA Faked the Moon Landing?Therefore, (Climate) Science Is a Hoax
---
Our findings parallel those of previous work and show that endorsement of free-market economics predicted rejection of climate science. Endorsement of free markets also predicted the rejection of other established scientific findings, such as the facts that HIV causes AIDS and that smoking causes lung cancer.
---

Political ideology affects energy-efficiency attitudes and choices
---
In a real-choice context, more conservative individuals were less likely to purchase a more expensive energy-efficient light bulb when it was labeled with an environmental message than when it was unlabeled.
---

Says a lot about the mentality of the cultists. They will deliberately make a choice that damages themselves economically, just so they can damage the environment. Why? Because, in the manner of surly teenagers, their primary goal is to proudly demonstrate how no one can stop them from behaving badly.

What I find even more astounding is that many consider themselves to be Christian, and Christians were given the mandate to take care of the planet - it's right there in the Bible,
Genesis 2:15
New International Version (NIV)
15 The Lord God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it.

but try to get them to understand that ignoring climate change, refusing to accept that we need to find other sources of energy that don't hurt the environment, and not protecting endangered species all goes against taking care of the land, is like talking to the wall.

Good explanation:
Subdue the Earth (Forerunner Commentary) :: Bible Tools

 

[depotoo]

A couple of new studies pointing out the obvious, which is how denialism is just one aspect of the extreme-right-wing-fringe political cult.

NASA Faked the Moon Landing?Therefore, (Climate) Science Is a Hoax
---
Our findings parallel those of previous work and show that endorsement of free-market economics predicted rejection of climate science. Endorsement of free markets also predicted the rejection of other established scientific findings, such as the facts that HIV causes AIDS and that smoking causes lung cancer.
---

Political ideology affects energy-efficiency attitudes and choices
---
In a real-choice context, more conservative individuals were less likely to purchase a more expensive energy-efficient light bulb when it was labeled with an environmental message than when it was unlabeled.
---

Says a lot about the mentality of the cultists. They will deliberately make a choice that damages themselves economically, just so they can damage the environment. Why? Because, in the manner of surly teenagers, their primary goal is to proudly demonstrate how no one can stop them from behaving badly.

What I find even more astounding is that many consider themselves to be Christian, and Christians were given the mandate to take care of the planet - it's right there in the Bible,
Genesis 2:15
New International Version (NIV)
15 The Lord God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it.

but try to get them to understand that ignoring climate change, refusing to accept that we need to find other sources of energy that don't hurt the environment, and not protecting endangered species all goes against taking care of the land, is like talking to the wall.

Good explanation:
Subdue the Earth (Forerunner Commentary) :: Bible Tools

what you don't seem to understand is many of us accept the climate is changing as it has for millenia. And because we do not see it as being due to the fault of AGW does not mean that we don't care for the earth. What we care more about is actually developing ways in which to cope with the actual changes rather than lining the pockets of others proclaiming we can actual stop any changes due to come when they cash in at the bank.
I would bet many of us live even greener than many of the AGW believers do.

 

[RollingThunder]

"NASA faked the moon landing therefore (climate) science is a hoax" so global warming skeptics must believe the same thing and be part of a cult. This is a perfect example of the crazy assumptions that the wacky warmists come up with. It's what we have been talking about all this time. The alleged "scientists" assume crazy stuff like this and fudge data to support their crazy theories. The whole wacky warmer world is full of this stuff.

No, dumbass, anti-science AGW deniers like you tend to be conspiracy theory wackos, therefore you're retarded. You demonstrate that you're a conspiracy theory wacko right here with your idiotic denier cult myth about scientists "fudging" data.

 

[IanC]

A couple of new studies pointing out the obvious, which is how denialism is just one aspect of the extreme-right-wing-fringe political cult.

NASA Faked the Moon Landing?Therefore, (Climate) Science Is a Hoax
---
Our findings parallel those of previous work and show that endorsement of free-market economics predicted rejection of climate science. Endorsement of free markets also predicted the rejection of other established scientific findings, such as the facts that HIV causes AIDS and that smoking causes lung cancer.
---

Political ideology affects energy-efficiency attitudes and choices
---
In a real-choice context, more conservative individuals were less likely to purchase a more expensive energy-efficient light bulb when it was labeled with an environmental message than when it was unlabeled.
---

Says a lot about the mentality of the cultists. They will deliberately make a choice that damages themselves economically, just so they can damage the environment. Why? Because, in the manner of surly teenagers, their primary goal is to proudly demonstrate how no one can stop them from behaving badly.

the Lewandowsky paper is a perfect example of bogus and shoddy climate 'science'. can you imagine anything stupider than taking a poll about opinions on science/social attitudes, done on climate concensus sites, and then making broad generalizations on a handful of replies that were almost certainly fake responses designed to make 'deniers' look stupid? the follow up paper was just as stupid. Lewandowsky has been slightly censured but should have been hung out to dry for fraudulent funding applications and poor methodology practise. and lying after the fact in describing the polling methods once they were investigated. unfortunately the initial press release on papers live forever and the rebuttals and denunciations get squat media exposure.

 

[RollingThunder]

A couple of new studies pointing out the obvious, which is how denialism is just one aspect of the extreme-right-wing-fringe political cult.

NASA Faked the Moon Landing?Therefore, (Climate) Science Is a Hoax
---
Our findings parallel those of previous work and show that endorsement of free-market economics predicted rejection of climate science. Endorsement of free markets also predicted the rejection of other established scientific findings, such as the facts that HIV causes AIDS and that smoking causes lung cancer.
---

Political ideology affects energy-efficiency attitudes and choices
---
In a real-choice context, more conservative individuals were less likely to purchase a more expensive energy-efficient light bulb when it was labeled with an environmental message than when it was unlabeled.
---

Says a lot about the mentality of the cultists. They will deliberately make a choice that damages themselves economically, just so they can damage the environment. Why? Because, in the manner of surly teenagers, their primary goal is to proudly demonstrate how no one can stop them from behaving badly.

the Lewandowsky paper is a perfect example of bogus and shoddy climate 'science'. can you imagine anything stupider than taking a poll about opinions on science/social attitudes, done on climate concensus sites, and then making broad generalizations on a handful of replies that were almost certainly fake responses designed to make 'deniers' look stupid? the follow up paper was just as stupid. Lewandowsky has been slightly censured but should have been hung out to dry for fraudulent funding applications and poor methodology practise. and lying after the fact in describing the polling methods once they were investigated. unfortunately the initial press release on papers live forever and the rebuttals and denunciations get squat media exposure.

You make these unsupported criticisms of a peer reviewed paper only because you don't like the results that cast a light on the prejudices and insanities of the politically motivated denier cultists like yourself.

This reminds me of what happened several years ago when the first study came out that linked AGW denial to belief in conspiracy theories and the denier cult bloggers immediately came up with several conspiracy theories to explain away the validity of the study. LOLOLOLOL.

Link Between Climate Denial and Conspiracy Beliefs Sparks Conspiracy Theories