I often go there to get a heads up on how people are going to respond to a question. Copy/paste isn't limited to wattupwiththat... often SKS the main resource for warmists.

Some of course don't bother with the actual science at all, or even answering the question, they just attack the person or the source. It gets tedious after a while.

Are you ok? This seems really disjoint compared to your normal "questions."

You seem to not like the conclusions of Lewandowsky's study very much. Funny thing, that.

edit: You have officially jumped the shark. It's to be expected, the cognitive dissonance became too great even for you. You're now like HAL, where the conflict in mission objectives and need for secrecy led to a psychotic supercomputer. I'm sorry for you, really I am. The objective evidence shows you're wrong scientifically, and now there is evidence demonstrating that the reason you're wrong is because your brain is defective. That has got to sting.

Betts was running his mouth and deserved to be called on it. One of the skeptic bloggers who was loudly saying Lewandowsky never contacted skeptic blogs later admitted they had been contacted by, and participated in, the survey. For his part, Lewandowsky has stated that the reason he didn't make an open post to the skeptic blogs was because so many of the respondents would clearly have been the loonies like the skeptics posting here and that would have biased his results even more towards the conclusions. (I mean really, do you think Jim Z would keep it in check enough to not come across as a nutbar conspiracy theorist? Even you can't, apparently.) Like I said, you need to face the fact that climate skepticism is a form of paranoid conspiracy theorism. But, of course, you can't.

In closing, I may be angry as hell at you skeptics, and depressed as hell over what will happen because of you ding-dongs, but I sleep pretty well at night knowing that at least my brain processes reality correctly.

So, a drenched in endless soot pot of YA is calling a kettle black yet again. Yawn. Does this anti-science rant of a fake question possibly have anything to do with actual science, by chance? Do we see pigs flying or snowballs piling up in some infernal pit akin to what frackers are turning swathes of western Canada into?

Oh Quelle Suprise, bilingual North Americans! Ottawa I-hate-science Mike still knows how to copy and paste and thinly rewrite to disguise from Wattsup the ex-weatherman turned full-time anti-science BS recycler. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/03/20/so...

Dave H not talking about science does indeed get tedious, but at least he doesn't post endless streams of pretend questions that pretend to be about science.

As for what causes such nonsense, never mind "cognitive dissonance," how about good old dyslexia? Surely the OM Mom actually said something more like; "Just because you ARE paranoid, doesn't mean someone IS out to get you."

@gcnp58...

Let me get this straight.

You think a non skeptic should be called out for his conspiracy views in a paper that's trying to prove that skepitcs are conspiracy nutjobs by their reactions to a study in an unpublished paper that tried to prove that skeptics are conspiracy nutjobs? And you also think Mike is a conspiracy theorist for even bringing it up.

"My God. Every one besides myself is completely paranoid. I know they're all spying on me."

I followed the links and found Lewandowsky was a pyschologist

<> and then it goes on to list some articles by him. It seems obvious to me he one of those people trying to exaggerate his knowledge who really is pretty clueless but I digress.

I didn't find the reference to Cook

<<>>

I sometimes try to read skeptical science but as a scientist, I found it simply too full of propaganda and pseudo-science. It isn't skeptical and it isn't about science. It generally one of the leftist blogs that I refer to when I tell alarmists they have to get their heads out of where the sun doesn't shine and left wing blogs.

Cook is a train wreck IMO but he helps provide alarmists with their information or misinformation.

I was about to post the escalator graph from skepticalscience, but what I saw about Keystone there makes me want to stop using skepticalscience as a reference. They even accused the State Department of making a fraudulent report. It may take a bit of effort on my part, but as of now, I refuse to use skepticalscience as a source.

Why should I believe a word you say?

If you do, you might want to be aware of what that website owner is up to, John Cook that is. He is buddies with Stephan Lewandowsky of that "skeptic conspiracy, moon-landing hoax" double header: http://www.shapingtomorrowsworld.org/bio.php?u=22

In their latest escapade http://australianclimatemadness.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/cook_lewandowsky1.jpg , this is a denier quote used as data found in the supplemental information to their latest peer reviewed study:

"The thing I don’t understand is, why didn’t they (Cook and Lewandowsky) just make a post on sceptic blogs themselves, rather than approaching blog owners. They could have posted as a Discussion topic here at Bishop Hill without even asking the host, and I very much doubt that the Bish would have removed it. Climate Audit also has very light-touch moderation and I doubt whether Steve McIntyre would have removed such an unsolicited post. Same probably goes for many of the sceptic blogs, in my experience. So it does appear to that they didn’t try very hard to solicit views from the climate sceptic community." www.frontiersin.org/Journal/DownloadFile.ashx?sup=1&articleId=40138&FileId=2676&FileName=Data%20Sheet%201.PDF&contentType=Data%20Sheet&contentTypeId=6&version=1

The problem is that comment comes from Richard Betts who is not a skeptic but rather a senior climate scientist at the UK Met Office and a lead author for the IPCC: http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/people/richard-betts

Do you see John Cook as a climate authority or a car crash? Really?!