This is the basic method of a person who doesn't want the truth to be known. They insult people, then say they didn't insult anyone. But if someone calls you the same you call it an insult. This detracts from the real argument, which is what these low life's want. Just like cockroaches that come out at night, these vile creatures cannot stand the light to be shined on them.
They repeatedly lie. Then when you catch them in their lies they just come back with the lie even louder and more brazen. This is by evil design.
Joseph Goebbels,
“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”
Notice the phrase, "It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent." Yes, these vermin just repeat the lie louder and more often (Philosophically speaking.) once caught in the lie, then get insulted when you inform them that they are acting in accordance to Nazi rituals.
These same people accuse you of heresy but claim they are not a religion.
Quote by Nigel Lawson, former Chancellor of the Exchequer of UK: “In Europe, where climate change absolutism is at its strongest, the quasi-religion of greenery in general and the climate change issue in particular have filled the vacuum of organised religion, with reasoned questioning of its mantras regarded as a form of blasphemy.”
To these malcontents, AGW is a religion. Their High Priest is Al Gore. They can deny it all they want but they still adhere to his tenets.
They are a sad group of people who delight in raising taxes. As if that was going to solve a scientific issue. Then get mad when you call AGW a political issue, not a scientific. What kind of person would be glad when taxes are foisted on their fellow man. You would have to be one who gains financially by the tax or just a 'useful idiot' like Stalin described.
Quote by Ottmar Edenhoffer, high level UN-IPCC official: "We redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy...Basically it's a big mistake to discuss climate policy separately from the major themes of globalization...One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore."
So the people in this evil movement have to know that AGW is political, not scientific. So the people in this evil movement have to know that AGW is religious, not scientific. Yet they get irate to the extent where they foam at the mouth when you point out to them that they are acting just like a Nazi or a religious fanatic.
These people are the epitome of 'hypocrisy'.
Nice rant, let me try to explain what I see.
In human behavior, denialism is exhibited by individuals choosing to deny reality as a way to avoid dealing with an uncomfortable truth. If you deny that CO2 is a greenhouse gas or that we humans have increased the levels of CO2 by 40% you are by definition a denialist. If one denies the science, why would any one be ashamed of being called a denialist? I deny the existence of ALL the gods, I am a denialist when it comes to deities.
Sagebrush quotes Nazi's. Advocates to execute over 65 million people for the "crime" of voting for a democrat and one of the Nazi concentration camp/'s first victims were liberals He compares justice, equality and sustainability to communism, communist were another group that were the first sent to the concentration camps. He made some disparaging remarks about rich because they were Jews, what makes you think he is not like a Nazi? Are you waiting for him to tell you what he thinks of homosexuality and foreigners so you can be sure?
He repeats his lies even after he has been corrected multiple times, including on his own questions. That shows he is not looking for an objective answer, but one that agrees with his distorted view of the world. How is that not like a flat earther?
And while plenty of other would disagree with me, I am still against the death penalty, even for evil people like Hitler, Sagebrush, Stalin, Mao, etc who all advocated to execute millions of people. How about you, do you think there are people who are evil enough that they deserve the death penalty?
When you start throwing terms around like "cultists" you are "venting" at best. So while I hope you feel better, it didn't persuade me of your arguments.
"In science, denialism has been defined as the rejection of basic concepts that are undisputed and well-supported parts of the scientific consensus on a topic in favor of ideas that are both radical and controversial. It has been proposed that the various forms of denialism have the common feature of the rejection of overwhelming evidence and the generation of a controversy through attempts to deny that a consensus exists. A common example is Young Earth creationism and its dispute with the evolutionary theory."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denialism
The funny thing is is that 'denialists' often bring up the name calling as a means of stating that they won and the ones doing the name calling lost. However 'denialists' have been doing the vast majority of name calling as of late. Calling scientists pedos, calling us cultists, nazis, and so on. No, skeptics should not have higher standards than myself. They should have pretty much the same standards as myself. However, unfortunately, I don;t see that happening and I see them continuing with their name calling as they have always done.
Deniers are called Deniers because it is an accurate description of their behavior and objective - they deny science and lie about scientists solely to further their political agenda.
Creationists perfected the technique and made it a core tactical component in their war against science along with redefining scientific concepts to include the non- and anti-science Creationist beliefs and practices. They redefined the word "evolutionist" (technically, they invented the word since it never existed as a job title or as part of a job description at any college, university, or research facility anywhere in the world) to mean "non-scientist" - they redefined "creationism" (belief in the creation mythology of quasi-historic, semi-nomadic Semitic tribes of illiterate sheep herders) to mean "science" - and they redefined "the scientific theory of biological evolution" as "Darwinism" (a religious adherence to the teachings of one person).
Deniers simply took the method developed by Creationists and applied it to a different scientific field. The main thing that distinguishes Deniers from Creationists is the Deniers inability to ever have an original idea. At least Creationists invented their own lies and propaganda - and that makes them smarter than Deniers.
========
edit ---
>>Gary F - Agenda driven "science" Is not true science in that there is no objectivity involved with any research. The outcome of climate research is predetermined and they craft their "research" to conform to it. The leaked climategate emails proved it.>>
That's Bullshlt talk from people who either no nothing about science or are lying to people who know nothing about science.
How - how is climate science conducted any differently than any other science? Be specific. And while you are at it, provide one single piece of evidence that any climate scientist has ever "predetermined" their results.
The climategate emails show nothing of the kind. Clearly you have never read them - and I suspect that you are too stupid to understand them if you did read them. But, go ahead and give me some specific examples of what you believe to be "evidence."
You have to know that you are scientifically illiterate, so what is it that makes you think you can pretend to be knowledgeable and fool people who actually understand the science?
========
Mickey Finn ---
>>There are about a dozen reasons why the AGW hypothesis is fatally flawed.<<
Excluding the fact that AGW is a theory and not a hypothesis - how about naming a few of those "dozen" reasons. And, while you're at it, how about defining what constitutes a "fatal flaw." For example, the question, "Does God exist?" has a fatal flaw that makes it not a valid scientific question (i.e., hypothesis). I don't suppose you even know why that is the case though, huh?
And then Mann turns around and files a lawsuit in court claiming emotional distress, after labeling all sorts of people deniers and in the pay of Big Oil.
"AGW cultists"?
"AGW is an agenda driven religion"?
And the fact that denialists call the scientists that tell them what they don't want to hear, liars?
OK! Let's talk about name calling.
Here is the deal. People who stalwartly insist on AGW dogma, in the face of very feeble scientific data, are rightly known as "Global Warming Alarmists," and pseudo-scientists. And as they shift the rhetoric to "Global Climate Change," they are just playing silly head-games. There are about a dozen reasons why the AGW hypothesis is fatally flawed. And, the official position nicely represents a lack of critical thinking.
Referring to warmests is name calling DUH
Deny is what you do so denial denialists deniers etc are based on the dictionary definition of denial which applies to anyone who denies reeality
Scientists look at the evidence.
The public resorts to name calling.
I know who I listen to in matters of climatology.
So you call us "cultists", say we call you "nazis", when it is in fact deniers who keep trying to make the connect to a nazi reference, simply because of the use of term denial, which is not it's only use, it is a term related to denial of "something" a term in use long before the nazis even existed. The use of nazis seems to be a continuing denier fetish, but please don't take my word for it, deniers seem to put much faith in YouTube videos there you will find many by one of your own leading commentators (Lord Mockingtone) he seems to like calling everyone from teachers to young kids, nazis.
I have never and would never call a denier a nazi, but as long as you deny science with absurd blogs you are deniers, as far as I can see with the exception of a couple of obvious troll accounts it is deniers themselves that keep dredging up the nazi reference, just as they are the one who keep asking why "alarmists constantly reference Gore" when in fact again it is usually deniers who try to reference him. So they can invent yet another conspiracy or story about him.
i.e the fictional beach-side house story deniers played over several years that was completely untrue, complete with picture of a beach side house that he never actually bought.
I mean I get that deniers hate Gore, the venom of their posts on him, make that abundantly obvious be he isn't a scientist has played no part in the research and while attacking him may fulfill some political motive deniers seem to have it does nothing at all to the science, to me all it seems to show is the anti-science hostility of deniers and the fact they can't address the science, even more obvious.
As for this nonsense
"They have advocated violence, intimidation, humiliation, character assassination"
Not sure what denier blog you got that from but what you have described there is what deniers have tried to do, to a number of lead climate scientists. Here in Australia death threats where handed over to the police and in the U.S. Mann get threats regularly.
Even here on YA we usually see a question from a denier about "how rude alarmists are) after a long string of Q&A's from deniers posting the most insulting comments
Your own title is a fine example "hypocrisy & cultists" as if that is not a sad attempt at an insult, I for one don't intend to sink to that denier level but let your own comments speak for themselves.
As for "character assassination" deniers seem to have this funny idea that character assassination is pointing out that someone is not even remotely qualified to seriously comment on AGW like Lord Mockingtone or Watts, that neither are even slightly qualified in any field of science is a fact.
But I think deniers know this otherwise why would they have played up a petition who had as it's lead a Nobel Winner, yet conveniently not mention that this scientist won for engineering work related to computer circuitry, nothing at all to do with climate science.
It is deniers who constantly claim to have thousands of climate scientists on their side yet whenever push comes to shove they can't produce more than the same 3-4.
Edit to Mickey Finn
"Here is the deal. People who stalwartly insist on AGW dogma, in the face of very feeble scientific data, are rightly known as "Global Warming Alarmists," and pseudo-scientists."
Hmm very feeble scientific evidence, that is a true denier take, on what is one of the largest data-sets ever collected covering all aspect of climate, ice, sea, solar and Atmospheric change.
Please feel free to post all the scientific sites that support your view, oh wait there arn't any are there, so what you are trying to twist into "Alarmists and pseudo-scientists" is in fact all the real scientists who research in all these field many many thousands of scientists from not just climate science but marine science, glaciology and solar scientists all provide data (and publish) their finding for the rest of each of their fields to study at no level has any of this research seriously been challenged, except in the fantasy world of denier blogs and again ask deniers for any published work to back their claims and they can't produce it, because it's (like those thousands of scientists they claim to have) simply don't exists.
I don't insult most deniers because frankly I think you guys have enough problems and as deniers seem unable to actually address the points I raise (for others reading this) why would I even need to.
I mean they label people who doubt AGW as "denialists, flat earthers, nazis, etc." then condemn skeptics when the favor is returned. Does this mean that AGW cultists actually think skeptics should have higher standards than they do. Obviously they do if they are going to condemn others for doing precisely what they do themselves.
Actually AGW cultists has gone far beyond name calling their opponents. They have advocated violence, intimidation, humiliation, character assassination, and a whole lot more when they demanded skeptics have their flesh permanently branded, incarcerated, excommunicated, publically tried for eviro crimes Nuremberg style, even executed.
I would have replied in the AGW cultist's question regarding name calling but the OP has me censored.
He censor's everyone who is not a climate parasite.
They started the name calling, and the ad hoc arguments, and the belittling of people who disagree with them.
