The Denier
Advertisements
Recent comments
uClimate- An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.
RSS
Advertisements
Archives
- August 2019
- October 2015
- May 2015
- February 2015
- January 2015
- September 2014
- July 2014
- June 2014
- May 2014
- April 2014
- March 2014
- February 2014
- January 2014
- December 2013
- November 2013
- October 2013
- September 2013
- August 2013
- July 2013
- May 2013
- March 2013
- February 2013
- January 2013
- December 2012
- September 2012
- May 2012
- April 2012
- March 2012
- February 2012
- January 2012
- December 2011
- November 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
- August 2011
- July 2011
- June 2011
- May 2011
- April 2011
- March 2011
- February 2011
Meta
Don’t give ’em ideas.
Wouldn’t this be nearer the mark?
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.
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.
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?
Pingback: Key Articles | ScottishSceptic