Lewandowsky and Cook are big on calling skeptics crazy or something. However, the methodology he used could be used to show anything you want. For example, you could conclude that warmists support pedophilia and genocide. Not because they do, but because skeptics don't.
That is literally the reasoning used by Lew in his papers.
I always see deniers going on about Lewandowsky and Goebbels. Are they your idols or something? One of these days I'll have to Google Lewandowsky and find out who he is/was.
In answer to you question about why it got deleted, I don't believe YA considers polls to be valid questions.
I had to look up who that character was even though it was slightly familiar. I suspect that there are psychological characteristics, to use Lewandowsky's studies, that are prevalent in AGW alarmists. Presumably, if skeptics have characteristics, alarmists must as well.
http://theresilientearth.com/?q=content/...
I suspect some recursive fury and conspiracist ideation in the blogosphere is at work here in response to your research on conspiracist ideation.
EDIT: Please don't confuse my answer with: "Recursive fury: Conspiracist ideation in the blogosphere in response to research on conspiracist ideation" by Lewandowsky et al. You remember, the one that was retracted.
By the way, has Stephen Lewandowsky ever "examined" the Big Oil Conspiracy against warmists?
Notice again how Lewandowsky the psychologist and Cook the cartoonist get support here to discuss the climate and knock down as many strawmen as they can dream up. This is because they are on message.
I still marvel at the prescience of his parents when they chose to make his name be an anagram of "What Lysenko spawned".
Well, if it wasn't too unreasonable, why don't you post it again? Be honest with yourself and, if you have overstepped the mark, make any minor changes to bring it to an acceptable standard.
I'll have a go at it!
Peggy probably got another run in her nylon and is taking it out on you.
Jeff M couldn't get a chart for it. The answers were too simple and thus he had no way of faking it.
Now Grungo can say you didn't ask that, because he voided the evidence.
Gore's little Alph (or should it be elf?) is just responding to his master's wishes.
CR couldn't answer it with 'the ten warmest years' prevarication.
Baccy Baby thought it had something to do with Lewinsky. (We won't go any farther with that.)
The greenies are still ticked off about losing the election.
It is highly ironic that in a loaded question whose sole purpose is to smear Prof Lewandowski because he dared to call many fake skeptics 'conspiracy theorists', a new conspiracy theory is fabricated in which all 'alarmists' report and delete the questions and answers they do not like.
Post it again and again and again, that should p!ss of the deleter, after all you only lose 10 points whats that?
I didn't delete it. Really.
But if I'd answered as I thought appropriate, my answer would have been deleted.
Which is why I didn't.
And IF my answer deserved to be deleted, then your question did as well.
Because that is what you wanted
It was just as scientificy as his, perhaps even more so as I did not post it just to true believer sites like he did.
welcome to the club.. many answers reported by 'trusted' member.
because you abuse yahoo answers
