This is how millions of people are fooled into believing the AGW crap.

[mamooth]

The whole "debunking the myth" line is the real myth. That there was a serious belief in the scientific community that the world was going to enter another glacial period is fact.

"Fact" in this case meaning something you believe with a religious fervor, despite the contrary evidence.

That this belief was held by a significant portion of scientists is fact.

If it's a fact, show us the evidence. You need to understand that we in the reason-based community aren't like you, and we won't accept faith-based claims.

However, the authors of the link seem to quickly forget and abandon all of this with their methodology of "debunking" that follows. They proceed to look for research papers that would declare "smoking gun" type scenarios predicting global cooling. They find few. Which is not at all surprising, because as they said themselves, there was no real "climate science" of the day.

That's a creative way to backpedal. Faced with the evidence that your claim that climate science predicted cooling was false, you respond by denying climate science existed. You certainly thought it existed when you incorrectly claimed it was predicting cooling. Climate science only seemed to vanish when you found it said the opposite of what you claimed.

As was said earlier in the thread, it's in the policy statement. Violations of company policy are subject to disciplinary action, up to and including termination.

And that's a paranoid conspiracy theory.

And that's why you're not taken seriously. Your science and logic stinks, and all you have is conspiracy theories.

 

[jc456]

The whole "debunking the myth" line is the real myth. That there was a serious belief in the scientific community that the world was going to enter another glacial period is fact.

"Fact" in this case meaning something you believe with a religious fervor, despite the contrary evidence.

That this belief was held by a significant portion of scientists is fact.

If it's a fact, show us the evidence. You need to understand that we in the reason-based community aren't like you, and we won't accept faith-based claims.

However, the authors of the link seem to quickly forget and abandon all of this with their methodology of "debunking" that follows. They proceed to look for research papers that would declare "smoking gun" type scenarios predicting global cooling. They find few. Which is not at all surprising, because as they said themselves, there was no real "climate science" of the day.

That's a creative way to backpedal. Faced with the evidence that your claim that climate science predicted cooling was false, you respond by denying climate science existed. You certainly thought it existed when you incorrectly claimed it was predicting cooling. Climate science only seemed to vanish when you found it said the opposite of what you claimed.

As was said earlier in the thread, it's in the policy statement. Violations of company policy are subject to disciplinary action, up to and including termination.

And that's a paranoid conspiracy theory.

And that's why you're not taken seriously. Your science and logic stinks, and all you have is conspiracy theories.

you still don't get it do you? hahahahahhaaha you crack me up.

 

[mamooth]

jc, stop derailing the thread. The thread topic is why people get sucked into pseudoscience cults. If you have nothing to add to it, go add it somewhere else.

So, some examples of the personality disorders here:

jc -- histrionic.

Billy -- antisocial, schizotypal.

From a psychological viewpoint, the interesting thing is how the denier cult unites these different types of personality disorders.

 

[HUGGY]

Just because something is "science" does not mean it is good science.

Here’s a dirty little science secret: If you measure a large number of things about a small number of people, you are almost guaranteed to get a “statistically significant” result.

I Fooled Millions Into Thinking Chocolate Helps Weight Loss. Here s How.

I'm more interested why you think the dumbest and most gullible of our population should dictate policy.

 

[SwimExpert]

At this point, the psychological issues behind denialism are much more interesting than any more repetitions of mindless denier conspiracy theories.

That's funny, because I could say the same thing about you. Now, I wasn't going to. I prefer to debate the science based on the science. But for some reason fools like you can never seem to do that. Why, even your obsessive use of the word "denialism" and its variants shows your deep-seated psychological issues on the matter are what's in control of your position, as opposed to rational and logical thinking. Instead of dealing with differences of opinion and alternative interpretations of the data and facts, you jump right to vile slander and attacking the personal worth of people based solely the person's willingness to agree to what you have designated as correct, without regard for said persons taking part in any logical analysis.

I am not a "denier." I am a skeptic of the theory of man-made global warming, and a person with logically based alternative ideas about its causes and magnitude. There is a spectrum of positions and beliefs regarding man-made global warming. Some people believe in man-made global warming and have rational thinking which brings them to their position. Such people, and people like myself, fall somewhere on the interior of that spectrum. People like you fall on the outer fringes. Such people, regardless of which outer fringe in which they reside, tend to be incapable of comprehending the spectrum altogether. It's an all-or-nothing proposition. For you, this is a religion.

That is, what causes a normal human to devolve into a denier?

I believe the better question is "what causes a person to devolve into being a shill?" You are a shill. There are shills on both sides. You are one of the shills for your side.

This recent study shows how, compared to regular people, deniers stick to their own echo chamber. They won't speak to anyone except other deniers, so they have little idea of what the real world is like.

Yes, that is a very accurate description of shills. Mamooth, you live in an echo chamber. You won't listen to anything other than what you already decided you are going to agree with.

Deniers don't show a common personality disorder, but we can often diagnose obvious personality disorders in individual deniers. Some common personality disorders you'll see displayed here are:

1. Histrionic (PAY ATTENTION TO ME!)
2. Narcissistic (Obviously, I, a mere layman, know better than all the scientists of the world, because of this blog I saw.)
3. Paranoid (IT'S ALL A HOAX!)
4. Shizotypal (cuckoo, cuckoo, ...)
5. Anti-social (I HATE YOU &#^#%^ DIRTY WARMERS)

Thank you once again for also describing the typical AGW shill.

1. Histrionic (Pay attention to me, or the penguins are gonna die!)
2. Narcissistic (I'm a "scientist," agree with everything I say or you're going to go to Hell!)
3. Paranoid (It's the oil companies spreading lies!)
4. Schizotypal

***Editor's note*** You don't even know what this means, do you? You label it as "cuckoo" in an apparent confusion with schizophrenia. Schizotypal Peronsonality Disorder is a condition where a person typically experiences substantial social anxiety, has a pervasive need for social isolation, typically leading to a lack of sociability and odd social behaviors and dressing styles (due to their self imposed isolation, or sometimes as a means of maintaining that isolation). That you are trying to make a claim that people who need and desire social isolation are going out of their way to "preach" a certain belief or idea is absolutely ludicrous.


5. Anti-social

***Editor's note*** You don't know what this means either, do you? Many people mistake anti-social behavior with schizoid and/or schizotypal behavior. Anti social behavior is lack of personal boundaries, characterized by behavior that violates the rights of other people and an inability to understand those rights or distinctions between how those rights limit one's own acceptable behaviors. Pushing someone off a subway platform because you want to walk pass them and you can't understand that your wants are inferior to their rights to personal safety is anti-social. Walking into a restaurant and eating food off someone's plate because it looks good and you want to taste, it is an example of anti-social behavior. Anti-social behavior is not to be confused with schizoid behavior (a disinterest in socializing; a preference for solitude; apathy, emotional disconnectedness, and emotional coldness), nor with schizotypal behavior (social anxiety and a pervasive need for isolation). Once again, it's ludicrous for you to try to inject this into the discussion of AGW.

 

[SwimExpert]

you still don't get it do you? hahahahahhaaha you crack me up.

No, he doesn't get it at all. He thinks that by quoting my post, he can simply respond to any idea whatsoever, and it will mean that that's what I actually said. Is he dumb enough to believe it will work? Or is he dumb enough to actually have so horribly misunderstood what I said? When evaluating what level of stupidity is evidenced by an action, among multiple possible explanations, we must first ascertain which explanation requires the least level of stupidity. From there, we can rely on Occam's razor, as the least level of stupidity required becomes the explanation with the fewest assumptions. The result is that only the least level of stupidity can be readily inferred from an action that has multiple possible explanations whereas each explanation involves a different level of stupidity.

So the question is, which one is more stupid?

 

[SwimExpert]

I'm more interested why you think the dumbest and most gullible of our population should dictate policy.

When did I suggest such a thing? The masses tend to be dumb and gullible, but the merits of a democratic system are better left for the politics forum.

 

[Sidekick]

Scientists lie. It happens. Sometimes they're just idiots who haven't got all the facts, or haven't thought it all the way through. Sometimes they're criminals who lie intentionally, for them it's a con game. And sometimes they're creeps who get their thrills from misleading others. If you're freaked out that the sky is falling, you've probably been deceived. If you're unwilling to hear the words of the skeptics and insist on calling them names like "denier" because they trust themselves instead of trusting you, then you have no business participating in anything called Science, out of your element, unqualified. There's no such thing as scientific consensus, but there is such a thing as logical fallacy; science is not a democracy where the scientists get to decide what is truth by a majority vote. OP does well to point that out in a thoughtful way. At the rate things are going, climate change hysterics are going to be forming lynch mobs to burn skeptics at the stake for witchcraft, get a hold of yourselves before it's too late.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

At this point, the psychological issues behind denialism are much more interesting than any more repetitions of mindless denier conspiracy theories. That is, what causes a normal human to devolve into a denier?

This recent study shows how, compared to regular people, deniers stick to their own echo chamber. They won't speak to anyone except other deniers, so they have little idea of what the real world is like.

Climate Change Debate Fueled by Echo Chambers New Study Finds SESYNC

We also have Lewandowsky's work on it. His first paper showed how conspiracy theorists tend to fall for a wide range of conspiracy theories. That's why most deniers will also tell you how the ozone hole never existed, and that DDT is harmless.

NASA Faked the Moon Landing Therefore Climate Science Is a Hoax

That paper prompted a torrent of conspiracy theories from deniers, thus proving the paper's point, and prompting the Recursive Fury paper.

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/files/2014/03/fpsyg-04-00073.pdf

And that prompted the deniers to go on a cult jihad against the publisher. The authoritarian mindset in general, which deniers usually possess, is described here.

http://members.shaw.ca/jeanaltemeyer/drbob/TheAuthoritarians.pdf

Deniers don't show a common personality disorder, but we can often diagnose obvious personality disorders in individual deniers. Some common personality disorders you'll see displayed here are:

1. Histrionic (PAY ATTENTION TO ME!)
2. Narcissistic (Obviously, I, a mere layman, know better than all the scientists of the world, because of this blog I saw.)
3. Paranoid (IT'S ALL A HOAX!)
4. Shizotypal (cuckoo, cuckoo, ...)
5. Anti-social (I HATE YOU &#^#%^ DIRTY WARMERS)

Have you figured out who IPCC 4 and 5 yet?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Just because something is "science" does not mean it is good science.

Here’s a dirty little science secret: If you measure a large number of things about a small number of people, you are almost guaranteed to get a “statistically significant” result.

I Fooled Millions Into Thinking Chocolate Helps Weight Loss. Here s How.

I'm more interested why you think the dumbest and most gullible of our population should dictate policy.

The AGWCult are easily the most gullible. They don't care how many times the data is altered they BELIEVE!

 

[jc456]

Just because something is "science" does not mean it is good science.

Here’s a dirty little science secret: If you measure a large number of things about a small number of people, you are almost guaranteed to get a “statistically significant” result.

I Fooled Millions Into Thinking Chocolate Helps Weight Loss. Here s How.

I'm more interested why you think the dumbest and most gullible of our population should dictate policy.

because they vote?

 

[jc456]

jc, stop derailing the thread. The thread topic is why people get sucked into pseudoscience cults. If you have nothing to add to it, go add it somewhere else.

So, some examples of the personality disorders here:

jc -- histrionic.

Billy -- antisocial, schizotypal.

From a psychological viewpoint, the interesting thing is how the denier cult unites these different types of personality disorders.

so why don't you answer why you get sucked in to it then. Instead you think you are a social worker on steroids.

 

[jc456]

you still don't get it do you? hahahahahhaaha you crack me up.

No, he doesn't get it at all. He thinks that by quoting my post, he can simply respond to any idea whatsoever, and it will mean that that's what I actually said. Is he dumb enough to believe it will work? Or is he dumb enough to actually have so horribly misunderstood what I said? When evaluating what level of stupidity is evidenced by an action, among multiple possible explanations, we must first ascertain which explanation requires the least level of stupidity. From there, we can rely on Occam's razor, as the least level of stupidity required becomes the explanation with the fewest assumptions. The result is that only the least level of stupidity can be readily inferred from an action that has multiple possible explanations whereas each explanation involves a different level of stupidity.

So the question is, which one is more stupid?

well we on the skeptic's side no it carries stupid around in its pocket daily. Using it multiple times a day post after post.

 

[jc456]

At this point, the psychological issues behind denialism are much more interesting than any more repetitions of mindless denier conspiracy theories. That is, what causes a normal human to devolve into a denier?

This recent study shows how, compared to regular people, deniers stick to their own echo chamber. They won't speak to anyone except other deniers, so they have little idea of what the real world is like.

Climate Change Debate Fueled by Echo Chambers New Study Finds SESYNC

We also have Lewandowsky's work on it. His first paper showed how conspiracy theorists tend to fall for a wide range of conspiracy theories. That's why most deniers will also tell you how the ozone hole never existed, and that DDT is harmless.

NASA Faked the Moon Landing Therefore Climate Science Is a Hoax

That paper prompted a torrent of conspiracy theories from deniers, thus proving the paper's point, and prompting the Recursive Fury paper.

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/files/2014/03/fpsyg-04-00073.pdf

And that prompted the deniers to go on a cult jihad against the publisher. The authoritarian mindset in general, which deniers usually possess, is described here.

http://members.shaw.ca/jeanaltemeyer/drbob/TheAuthoritarians.pdf

Deniers don't show a common personality disorder, but we can often diagnose obvious personality disorders in individual deniers. Some common personality disorders you'll see displayed here are:

1. Histrionic (PAY ATTENTION TO ME!)
2. Narcissistic (Obviously, I, a mere layman, know better than all the scientists of the world, because of this blog I saw.)
3. Paranoid (IT'S ALL A HOAX!)
4. Shizotypal (cuckoo, cuckoo, ...)
5. Anti-social (I HATE YOU &#^#%^ DIRTY WARMERS)

Have you figured out who IPCC 4 and 5 yet?

no, that isn't in its ability range.

 

[bripat9643]

Every single Scientific Society, every National Academy of Science, and every major University has policy statements that AGW is real, and a clear and present danger. Yes, there is a scientific consensus that AGW is real. There is not a consensus on the reality among the uneducated and willfully ignorant. Those that believe in the 'Way thing oughter be', rather than the way things really are.

Appeal to authority - your favorite logical fallacy.

 

[jc456]

Every single Scientific Society, every National Academy of Science, and every major University has policy statements that AGW is real, and a clear and present danger. Yes, there is a scientific consensus that AGW is real. There is not a consensus on the reality among the uneducated and willfully ignorant. Those that believe in the 'Way thing oughter be', rather than the way things really are.

Appeal to authority - your favorite logical fallacy.

they are his gods. It's funny how they preach about no god and then follow one or two or three.

 

[HUGGY]

Every single Scientific Society, every National Academy of Science, and every major University has policy statements that AGW is real, and a clear and present danger. Yes, there is a scientific consensus that AGW is real. There is not a consensus on the reality among the uneducated and willfully ignorant. Those that believe in the 'Way thing oughter be', rather than the way things really are.

Appeal to authority - your favorite logical fallacy.

they are his gods. It's funny how they preach about no god and then follow one or two or three.

Clever rebuttal. An Atheist believes in no gods only reliable information. That means we check sources and form our own opinion independently of others opinions.

An Atheist will say "I believe...."

A theist will say "WE believe..."

The weaker people will be more inclined to seek AGREEMENT. That is what the echo chambers they rely on offer. That is ALL they offer.

Stronger minds seek only information. They seek the best information and the least opinion and agreement.

If the earth was only less than 10,000 years old the best information would show it as so. We know from the best and obvious research that it is a lot north of 4 billion years old and the universe some 14 billion years old. Still there are those that cling to a 10,000 year old earth. How is that even possible?

Clearly some people are having bad information drummed into their ears and eyes to stick to such a stupid conclusion that the earth is less than 10,000 years old. Allowing people this stupid to participate in any scientific discussion on climate is just simply harmful to any reliable conclusion.

Putting the existence of human activity as some of the cause of CO elevation leading to changes in global temperatures up to a vote is a very bad idea at this time. We have elected some very stupid people in powerful positions. They have proven through their statements the minds they possess have no reasonable business to make decisions on matters that challenge the religious values and so-called facts that they have accepted. They will fight with religious fervor any and all information disputing their interpretation of bibles and supposed gods commands.

We would be better served having monkeys and chimps voting on the value of science than these cretins who have already made up their minds. At least the chimps would vote randomly cancelling out the misinformed votes.

 

[mamooth]

That's funny, because I could say the same thing about you. Now, I wasn't going to. I prefer to debate the science based on the science.

I thought you just made up stories about the science, and then piled bad logic on top of it. Can you show us some of your science?

I am not a "denier." I am a skeptic of the theory of man-made global warming, and a person with logically based alternative ideas about its causes and magnitude.

Let's look at the reasoning of your OP.

1. Some people fell for a dumb story.
2. Therefore, we should doubt the science behind global warming.

Given how bad a logic fail that was on your part, you can't reasonably claim to be logical.

I believe the better question is "what causes a person to devolve into being a shill?" You are a shill.

You can keep telling yourself that, as it plainly gives you emotional comfort, but at the end of the day, the hard evidence agrees with me and contradicts you. That makes me the reason-based person, and you the shill.

***Editor's note*** You don't even know what this means, do you? You label it as "cuckoo" in an apparent confusion with schizophrenia. Schizotypal Peronsonality Disorder is a condition where a person typically experiences substantial social anxiety, has a pervasive need for social isolation, typically leading to a lack of sociability and odd social behaviors and dressing styles (due to their self imposed isolation, or sometimes as a means of maintaining that isolation). That you are trying to make a claim that people who need and desire social isolation are going out of their way to "preach" a certain belief or idea is absolutely ludicrous.

Both schizoid and schizotypal involve social isolation. Schizoid, it's more because someone has no interest in people. Schizotypal, it's more because someone is strange.

***Editor's note*** You don't know what this means either, do you? Many people mistake anti-social behavior with schizoid and/or schizotypal behavior. Anti social behavior is lack of personal boundaries, characterized by behavior that violates the rights of other people and an inability to understand those rights or distinctions between how those rights limit one's own acceptable behaviors.

Like some of the deniers here. If you haven't seen it yet, stick around.

No, he doesn't get it at all. He thinks that by quoting my post, he can simply respond to any idea whatsoever, and it will mean that that's what I actually said. Is he dumb enough to believe it will work?

I think that you're deflecting now because you can't address how bad your logic was, and how your claim got debunked.

Or is he dumb enough to actually have so horribly misunderstood what I said? When evaluating what level of stupidity is evidenced by an action, among multiple possible explanations, we must first ascertain which explanation requires the least level of stupidity. From there, we can rely on Occam's razor, as the least level of stupidity required becomes the explanation with the fewest assumptions. The result is that only the least level of stupidity can be readily inferred from an action that has multiple possible explanations whereas each explanation involves a different level of stupidity.

Let's see if you actually understand it. According to Occam's Razor, which is more likely to be true?

A. A vast secret global conspiracy involving millions of people exists, which is covering up all the problems with global warming science.

or

B. You screwed up.

 

[PredFan]

Why don't you explain how that applies to the climate science conducted worldwide over the last 30 years or so?

I already did. You're just too obtuse to comprehend it between bong hits.

ROTFLOL

 

[jc456]

That's funny, because I could say the same thing about you. Now, I wasn't going to. I prefer to debate the science based on the science.

I thought you just made up stories about the science, and then piled bad logic on top of it. Can you show us some of your science?

I am not a "denier." I am a skeptic of the theory of man-made global warming, and a person with logically based alternative ideas about its causes and magnitude.

Let's look at the reasoning of your OP.

1. Some people fell for a dumb story.
2. Therefore, we should doubt the science behind global warming.

Given how bad a logic fail that was on your part, you can't reasonably claim to be logical.

I believe the better question is "what causes a person to devolve into being a shill?" You are a shill.

You can keep telling yourself that, as it plainly gives you emotional comfort, but at the end of the day, the hard evidence agrees with me and contradicts you. That makes me the reason-based person, and you the shill.

***Editor's note*** You don't even know what this means, do you? You label it as "cuckoo" in an apparent confusion with schizophrenia. Schizotypal Peronsonality Disorder is a condition where a person typically experiences substantial social anxiety, has a pervasive need for social isolation, typically leading to a lack of sociability and odd social behaviors and dressing styles (due to their self imposed isolation, or sometimes as a means of maintaining that isolation). That you are trying to make a claim that people who need and desire social isolation are going out of their way to "preach" a certain belief or idea is absolutely ludicrous.

Both schizoid and schizotypal involve social isolation. Schizoid, it's more because someone has no interest in people. Schizotypal, it's more because someone is strange.

***Editor's note*** You don't know what this means either, do you? Many people mistake anti-social behavior with schizoid and/or schizotypal behavior. Anti social behavior is lack of personal boundaries, characterized by behavior that violates the rights of other people and an inability to understand those rights or distinctions between how those rights limit one's own acceptable behaviors.

Like some of the deniers here. If you haven't seen it yet, stick around.

No, he doesn't get it at all. He thinks that by quoting my post, he can simply respond to any idea whatsoever, and it will mean that that's what I actually said. Is he dumb enough to believe it will work?

I think that you're deflecting now because you can't address how bad your logic was, and how your claim got debunked.

Or is he dumb enough to actually have so horribly misunderstood what I said? When evaluating what level of stupidity is evidenced by an action, among multiple possible explanations, we must first ascertain which explanation requires the least level of stupidity. From there, we can rely on Occam's razor, as the least level of stupidity required becomes the explanation with the fewest assumptions. The result is that only the least level of stupidity can be readily inferred from an action that has multiple possible explanations whereas each explanation involves a different level of stupidity.

Let's see if you actually understand it. According to Occam's Razor, which is more likely to be true?

A. A vast secret global conspiracy involving millions of people exists, which is covering up all the problems with global warming science.

or

B. You screwed up.

you wouldn't know a logical point if it jumped up and bit you. First things first, if you are going to call someone out about presenting science, then present some of yours, since you never have. I call a call to science against you! present something for a friggin change. Let's see your scientific evidence. Let's go