Andy Skuce just told me that:

Nobody sane wants man-made climate change to be true.

What he means, of course, is: if the Earth’s climate is just a “hoax,” why do the world’s top scientists keep finding evidence they’d rather not find? Why does it keep piling up against their will? Explain that, Brad.

Oh Andy.

Andy Andy Andy.

That geriatric meme? Really?

It’s not as if I haven’t tried to warn these people. Like most comical tragedies in history, this gaffe could have been avoided if they’d just read Climate Nuremberg, where they would have found this quiz:

.

‘The Fear is Palpable‘

It’s often said the best reason to accept the reality of dangerous climate change is that nobody in the science community wants it to be real. Scientists would like nothing better than to find out that whole lifetimes of research have been wasted in needless panic.

Well, that’s what our intuition tells us. But let’s be scientific about this; let’s be falsifiable. Compute the consequences of our guess, and see if nature agrees.

Let’s go back to 1996—to a time when “climate science” still involved a certain degree of speculation, and the future state of the planet’s fluid envelope wasn’t known with quite the precision and accuracy we take for granted from today’s climate forecasts.

The Guardian reporter Fred Pearce describes some Scientists at work. Does he report:

A.  Tim Barnett, then of the Scripps Institution of Oceanography, part of the University of California, San Diego, joined Jones to form a small group within the IPCC to mine this data for signs of changes in temperature, ready to report in the next assessment due in 2001.

“What worries us is that the current patterns of temperature change might prove distinctive, quite different from the patterns of natural variability in the past,” Barnett told me in 1996. Even then they were afraid they might find a hockey stick.

Or:

B.  Tim Barnett, then of the Scripps Institution of Oceanography, part of the University of California, San Diego, joined Jones to form a small group within the IPCC to mine this data for signs of global warming, ready to report in the next assessment due in 2001.

“What we hope is that the current patterns of temperature change prove distinctive, quite different from the patterns of natural variability in the past,” Barnett told me in 1996. Even then they were looking for a hockey stick.

As global warming increases geometrically, so too does the jackpot of fame and glory awaiting any scientist who can announce all of modern science is wrong.

Did Professor Phil Jones confide, in an illegally-stolen private email in 2005, that:

A.  This quote is from an Australian at [the Bureau of Meteorology Research Centre] (not Neville Nicholls)… What an idiot. The scientific community would shower me with gratitude if I said the world had cooled from 1998. OK it has, but it is only 7 years of data and it isn’t statistically significant.
…
As you know, I’m not political. If anything, I would like to see climate change stop, so the science could be proved wrong, because of its consequences. This isn’t being political, it is being selfish.

Or:

B.  The scientific community would come down on me in no uncertain terms if I said the world had cooled from 1998. OK, it has, but it is only 7 years of data and it isn’t statistically significant.
…
As you know, I’m not political. If anything, I would like to see the climate change happen, so the science could be proved right, regardless of the consequences. This isn’t being political, it is being selfish.

But existential threats don’t go away just because we’d like them to. As the apparent pause continued, did Professor Jones write, in May 2009:

A.  Bottom line: the ‘no upward trend’ has to continue for a total of 15 years before we breathe a sigh of relief.

Or:

B.  Bottom line: the ‘no upward trend’ has to continue for a total of 15 years before we get worried.

Fake skeptics are especially prone to wishful thinking. One such “skeptic,” Professor Richard Muller, at least has the self-awareness to acknowledge it. Does he write:

A.  Let me be clear. My own reading of the literature and study of paleoclimate suggests strongly that carbon dioxide from burning of fossil fuels will prove to be the greatest pollutant of human history. It is likely to have severe and detrimental effects on global climate.

I would love to believe that the results of Mann et al. are wrong, and that the last few years haven’t been the warmest in a millennium.

Love to believe? My own words make me shudder. They trigger my scientist’s instinct for caution. When a conclusion [like Mann’s] is threatening, I am tempted to increase the burden of proof, to demand an unattainable level of certainty. But that is not the way to truth. When the conclusions are threatening, we must be all the more willing to consider them as possibilities.

Or:

B.  I would love to believe that the results of Mann et al. are correct, and that the last few years have been the warmest in a millennium.

Love to believe? My own words make me shudder. They trigger my scientist’s instinct for caution. When a conclusion [like Mann’s] is attractive, I am tempted to lower my standards, to do shoddy work. But that is not the way to truth. When the conclusions are attractive, we must be extra cautious.

It’s not just within the scientific world that “skeptics” are afraid of the truth, of course.

Does the climate writer Paul Caruso, an admitted denier, admit that:

A.  I genuinely would hate to be persuaded again that CO2 is causing, or even could cause, us a problem.

To be honest I’m not really worried, because I have searched for years for the evidence that would convince me that man-made CO2-induced global warming is happening.

Or:

B.  I genuinely would like to be persuaded again that CO2 is causing, or even could cause, us a problem.

To be honest I don’t really hold out much hope because I have searched for years for the evidence that would convince me that man-made CO2-induced global warming is happening.

Scoring:

Bravo, you’re a 20:20 climate visionary! Now subtract 5 points for every A.

Conclusion

The yearning for a climate crisis is undeniable (so don’t even deny it—please; have some dignity).

Even as early as 2004, even Andy Revkin—Their Man at the New York Times—had figured out what The Scientists™ really desired, as he wrote to Tim Osborn:

I look forward to talking a bit shortly.
 A key question, to me, is whether this new analysis implies that there has 
been wishful (or at lest selective) thinking in the paleo analyses done so
 far (mann and others)? In other words, is there any evidence in all of this 
that their bias against past variability is intentional? 
We’re all always looking for what we want to find, to some extent, no?

Then again, Revkin’s curiosity (“is there any evidence in all this…”) would have made him a bad Scientist™. He’d have been better off in a field like science.

So when believalists tell you they’d love to find out that the infidels are right, they’re not being honest. They’re just being—what’s the word?—effective.

I’m not suggesting, of course, that they don’t fear for the future. Of course they do. Their fear is palpable.

And this is what they’re afraid of:

What if climate change appears to be just mainly a multidecadal natural fluctuation? They’ll kill us probably …

.

I do hope Andy Skuce is up to date with his tetanus shots. Because the former scientist (now reduced to warming seats as a ninth-tier opinionologist) stepped on a bit of a rake when he wrote,

Nobody sane wants man-made climate change to be true.

Slapstick is like any other comedy: it’s hit-and-miss. (Just ask Chris Rock.)

But in this case the thwack of wood vs nasal cartilage was definitely amusing, at least to me. I can only think of eight maxillofaces more deserving of a bit o’ the ol’ Sideshow Bob action.

Technically, Skuce made his beginner’s blunder months ago. But no one voluntarily reads his blog, and it was pure luck that I noticed it at all. If a fake scientist steps on a gardening implement in a forest and nobody is there to hear him swear, does it make a blah blah blah… a koan for the ages.*

After regaining my composure and wiping the incredulity from my monitor, I dropped Andy a friendly clue-bomb in the comments thread.

I quoted the words—the actual words (B)—of Phil Jones. I quoted Richard Muller. I quoted Paul Caruso. I quoted Tim Barnett.

Finally, this Parthian one-liner was the sum total of my own words on the subject (and I won’t pretend it was especially imaginative):

[There must be] a lot of insane people in climate science then, by your reckoning.

Having just sodomized a component of Andy’s belief system with a chainsaw—if I may say so myself—I now left him with only two reasonable choices. Reader, just for laughs, would you care to guess whether he opted to:

1) concede that he was wrong,

2) or argue that my argument was wrong?

Take your time.

Hehehe. That was a trick question, obviously. Sorry!

If you’ve ever tried to correct a believalist—climate or otherwise—you’ll have spotted the false dichotomy. I tacitly assumed that our interlocutor was more-or-less psychologically normal, whereas we all know cult members are nothing of the sort, don’t we? When a person Believes, Truly Believes, they suddenly have rhetorical options that aren’t open to the general public.

And so it was that Andy Skuce chose what the sages call The Third Way:

3) whine and flee

Now I don’t know about you, but I’d be a little embarrassed to put my name to this combination of rudeness, laziness and cowardice:

Those citations are lame, even by your standards, Brad. Only the first one from Jones supports your case and is is an off-the-cuff private remark to his friends, taken out of context.

No more of this, please.

(Fine, no more undermining your deeply-held personal belief system if it’s that precious to you! Sheesh.)

I’d be rather surprised if anyone on Earth, even Andy Skuce, was persuasible enough to find Andy Skuce’s floridly inadequate comeback persuasive. The word that comes to mind is unserious.

Confession: I couldn’t (or at least, I didn’t) resist the opportunity of a bit of man-while-he’s-down-kicking:

Thanks Andy!

So we’re agreed: nobody sane wants man-made climate change to be true, except when speaking privately to their friends.

“But Braaaad,” I hear you whinge, “I can’t find that comment anywhere. Link pls?”

You know as well as I do where my reply languishes, and will languish until the heat death of the universe. It’s in Andy’s CENSORED folder, the accessory no cult member leaves home without.

I’ve said it before:

Scratch a believalist, sniff a deletionist.

It’s not their fault… as such. They can’t live with the cognitive dissonance, but they’re not smart enough to resolve it the way a grownup would: with jesuitico-sophistical casuistry and doublethink. (The average climate deleter is barely capable of singlethink.)

What choice do they have but to erase the threatening information holus bolus?

So, next time a believalist represses your comment, don’t get mad. Count to ten. Now ask yourself: can you really blame them for shouting “La la la” and sticking their fingers in their eyes rather than look at words that would only confuse and frighten them?

I’d probably do the same thing if I were a zero-dignity quarter-wit.

Here’s another deathless truth from my back catalog of wisdom:

The interval between the first comment you’re allowed to post at a catastrophist blog and the last is inversely proportional to the honesty and (equivalently) effectiveness with which you advocate climate insouciance.

Having been made persona non grata at Skuce’s pointless little ‘bsite for the offence of a single sentence of my own, I believe I now hold the ban-speed record at 3 (three) such blogs. But feel free to correct me in comments below if you think you have priority.

Not that I like to brag! I prefer to let my stats do it.

The ‘Fear Is Palpable’ quiz never really belonged at Nuremberg, for obvious stylistic reasons. So in closing, I’d like to thank Andy for giving me a ‘scuse to migrate it here.

Before I delete the original, though, I couldn’t forgive myself if I failed to reproduce the following comment for posterity. This Meisterwerk of passive-aggressive sarcasto-masochism was submitted by the Madonna of climate commentary, a guy who needs no introduction and no surname.

.
Joshua Apr 19, 2014

Good work, Brad. You have done the detective work to find out the truth. In reality, what climate scientists are hoping for is for hundreds of millions of people, including friends and family and the descendants of friends and family, to suffer, so that their theories can be proven correct. And, of course, the only thing sweeter than immediate family suffering is for poor children to suffer. Nothing makes a climate scientist feel better than some kid in Africa dying from malnutrition.

If it weren’t for those pesky “skeptics,” with their noble concern for others, in particular those less fortunate than themselves, the AGW cabal could ensure suffering by destroying capitalism, and hence they wouldn’t have to worry about their hoax being revealed – because they win either way!

.

Bingo.

And it only took me how long to explain this to you, Joshua?

* How many other gems lie undiscovered in the dross of Andy’s blog? We’ll probably never know.

Scratch that: we’ll definitely never know, because Critical Angle is so boring even the title makes you want to cut yourself.

Tags:

28 Comments

  1. In order to understand the mindset of academics on climate, just watch a program on Chimpanzee territorial behaviour. Academics are group animals – and so instinctively, they will gang together to attack anyone who enters what they perceive as “their territory”. And because this response to “ingressors” is instinctual, it is not controlled by an rational thought and is instead extremely hostile (in their own sweet way). But they know they are being really aggressive (in their own sweet way), so they rationalise it as being the “invaders” own fault. They characterise the invader as being pure evil – in order to rationalise their own instinctive response.

    A fuller version is in my book, available on Amazon but downloadable for free: http://scottishsceptic.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/The-Academic-Ape.pdf

    Liked by 2 people

  2. An article whose text is just slightly more engaging, original and funny than the title – and the title is very, very funny and original. Cheered my morning up.

    Liked by 5 people

  3. funny story – Andy wrote a post on his blog about me once (in response to my comments in a Guardian article), we had a chat in the comments, and he even offered me a guest post…!

    discussion was had in his comments, he then wiped the whole blog post, as if it had never existed…

    Is that running away, taking the ball with you and pretending the losing football match never actually happened..

    I was quite surprised, I managed to grab a copy of the article from google cache (got it somewhere) didn’t capture all the comments though.

    He wrote it because i fell about laughing and made a Guardian comment, in response to when a Guardian commentor called Andy Scuse a Climate Denier…. ! (in an Adam Corner article)

    http://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/climate-change-communication-uncertainty#comment-31440514

    Liked by 3 people

  4. Brain fade – mine – You were talking about Andy – so I put Andy – instead of GPWayne (another SkS bod, and also a Guardian contributor) in the above..

    they are just so used to having the last or only word, and cannot sustain a discussion, without running away (the SkS – moderation policy, deletion and snipping, leaves them ill prepared)

    Liked by 3 people

  6. they are just so used to having the last or only word, and cannot sustain a discussion, without running away (the SkS – moderation policy, deletion and snipping, leaves them ill prepared)

    If the calibre of posts and typical comments on this site are anything to go by, it’s seems much more likely that they just can’t be bothered in some cases. Choosing not to sustain discussions with some, doesn’t mean that they’re incapable of sustaining a discussion. Have you considered that?

    Like

  9. thought for the day –

    If Skeptical Science (and others) spent more time dealing with alarmist nonsense, in the media, and by activists/politicians/NGOs then there would be less climate sceptics, who tend to respond to activist alarmist nonsense in the media…

    If some object to he word alarmist, John Cook had similar observations..

    “And I won’t deny there are alarmists in the global warming camp. Urgent cries that the ice sheets are on the verge of sliding into the sea. Hysteric predictions that Manhattan will soon be underwater. Or emotional pleas to save those cute little polar bears.

    Sadly, alarmists seem to be the loudest voices in the global warming debate. But that doesn’t change the science underneath.”

    – John Cook – 2007 Skeptical Science
    http://web.archive.org/web/20071213172906/http://www.skepticalscience.com/page.php?p=3

    Liked by 3 people

  10. yet you keep on coming back – LOL

    LOL? Seriously? And you wonder why some choose not to sustain a discussion?

    If Skeptical Science (and others) spent more time dealing with alarmist nonsense, in the media, and by activists/politicians/NGOs then there would be less climate sceptics,

    Rubbish. You would probably simply find some other reason to justify your supposed skepticism. This “they made me do it” argument is pathetic. Either you have the ability to assess this for yourself, in which case the behaviour of Skeptical Science is irrelevant, or you do not, in which case the behaviour of Skeptical Science might be relevant but you would still be responsible for the views that you choose to hold.

    As John Cook says

    ….that doesn’t change the science underneath.

    Like

  11. thing is I have no problem with the IPCC working group 1 Assessment – of attribution..

    Yet I would be lumped in with the very few people that do not believe in climate change at all (DECC UK surveys)

    For the public, who become sceptical, or perhaps more accurately just switch off, the newspapers are full of alarmist nonsense science stories, be it medical, climate or any other subject under the sun.. this drip drip of nonsense, means it is just background noise..

    Why don’t we have this chat at your blog – LOL

    Liked by 4 people

  12. Yet I would be lumped in with the very few people that do not believe in climate change at all (DECC UK surveys)

    Why do you care what other people might think?

    climate or any other subject under the sun.. this drip drip of nonsense, means it is just background noise..

    This doesn’t change the science. Also, what if there’s not as much nonsense as you seem to suggest?

    Why don’t we have this chat at your blog – LOL

    LOL???? What’s wrong with here…okay, there’s lots wrong with here, but you know what I mean.

    Like

  13. UK Public (DECC)

    Q22) Thinking about the causes of climate change, which, if any, of the following best describes your opinion?
    Base: Wave 1/5/9/13 – All respondents (2,121/ 2,051/ 2,040/ 1,981)**

    Wave 1 5 9 13
    % % % %
    Climate change is entirely caused by natural processes 5 5 5 4
    Climate change is mainly caused by natural processes 10 7 7 9
    Climate change is partly caused by natural processes
    and partly caused by human activity 42 42 47 42
    Climate change is mainly caused by human activity 29 28 26 28
    Climate change is entirely caused by human activity 9 10 9 11
    I don’t think there is such a thing as climate change 3 4 4 3
    Don’t know 2 2 2 2
    No opinion 1 1 1 1

    TOTAL NATURAL PROCESSES 15 12 13 12
    TOTAL HUMAN ACTIVITY 38 38 35 40
    ** Not asked at Wave 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 14 or 15

    I’d be in the partly human/partly natural / mainly agw boundary..

    Liked by 1 person

  15. I don’t get your point about the survey. If that’s where you are, that’s where you are. That’s your choice.

    Well personally I would ban you from commenting at this blog, until you extend the courtesy of allowing people here to comment at your blog.

    Go for it. I also promise that I won’t complain publicly if you do so. It’s your (and your colleagues’s) blog.

    Like

  16. the point about the survey, is the uk public 90% plus ‘accept climate change, has A man made cause (at the very least in part) – but the humans cause global warming’ mantra consensus, makes it a binary issue..

    97% of scientist do NOT think humans cause ALL global warming, yet this is how these surveys are put across.

    I’ve not made a blog post here, so not really ‘mine’ yet.
    I maybe a tad grumpier at the moment (on a diet) lost a stone in 6 weeks, and another stone to go… (which may take a little longer)

    Liked by 2 people

  17. Silly people like this Skuce fellow are presumably attracted to the low standards of scientific and popular discourse in the CO2 Alarming! camp. A chap can decide that AGW means children won’t know what snow means, or hurricanes must get worse, or winters wetter or drier or cooler or warmer, or whatever else comes to minds in the throes of vivid imaginings and stimulated by the prospects of publicity and increased funding.

    Here is a new development (hat-tip http://defyccc.com/climate-alarmism-research-database/) which looks promising as a resource for historians, sociologists, psychiatrists, and journalists, and for scientists concerned about the falling reputation of their calling and willing to try to put their finger on some of the causes. In its own words:

    Home at Tome22 TOC
    This site provides access to a database covering the people, organisations, documents and emails involved in the Climate Crisis. It is relatively easy to look up a person or an organisation on this site.
    The database is used to automatically annotate documents with concerns that should be brought to the reader’s attention while the document is being read.
    This site is used to support the sister site: Citizen’s Inquiry which aims to see if there is a prima facie case for any of a long list of concerns about the Climate Crisis.
    Tutorial is a good place to get a feel for the power and extent of the database. Research is better when you are more familiar.

    Looks promising to me. Here is an example of another silly person floundering about in his own pond of untruths and off-the-cuff imaginings that happened to suit him at the time:

    1: Professor Steffen’s use of the AAS Q&As against the IAC Report TOC
    1-1: Professor Steffen is the Director of the ANU Institute of Climate Change, a Climate Commissioner of the Australian Government and the sole scientific advisor to the MultiParty Committee on Climate Change which formulated Australia’s policy on climate change.
    1-2: At a public meeting on 20 July 2011 Professor Steffen stated that the IAC came out and said the science [in AR4] is sound When challenged he withdrew from the statement and stated All of the National Academies of Science that have undertaken formal reviews of the IPCC … have found that the basic science of the IPCC … is sound. When asked to produce these formal reviews, he conceded that he was referring to the AAS Q&As and that it was not a formal review.
    1-3: Professor Steffen was asked if he had briefed the MultiParty Committee on the criticisms in the IAC report. He replied evasively.
    1-4: This article summarises the correspondence and provides links to each message.
    Read the correspondence

    See the original for links: http://tome22.info/TopCitInq/Conversations.html#id2

    Liked by 3 people

  18. ATTP:
    ‘And you wonder why some choose not to sustain a discussion?’

    We only “wonder” rhetorically. We know perfectly well why your cobelievalists run screaming from the risk of open discussion.

    The mystery, Ken, is why you don’t.

    Liked by 2 people

  19. Barry, congratulations on your weight loss, to which I’ll attribute this grumpy suggestion:

    ” Well personally I would ban you from commenting at this blog, until you extend the courtesy of allowing people here to comment at your blog. ”

    No.

    1. it wouldn’t work—Ken is too smart to ever let someone like me, inter alios, back into his sheltered workshop for the scientifically confused

    2. what’d be the point? does anyone miss it?

    Liked by 1 person

  20. I very rarely look at the And Then There’s Politics blog these days but occasionally it’s worth it for the cluelessly self-awareness-lacking comedy gems – the latest is that he’s giving Matt Ridley a lecture on free speech! hilarious.

    Barry is of course correct that biased, misleading alarmist hype, and the failure to confront it, makes people sceptical about climate change. Many people have said this is a major factor in their scepticism, as documented in my paper on the subject.

    Liked by 4 people

  21. Paul,
    Strange, it’s almost as if you’re suggesting that how I moderate my blog is somehow a free speech issue. However, that can’t be what you’re suggesting, because that would clearly be ridiculous (okay, I might be wrong here, as you seem to think Delingpole and Monckton views have some merit).

    Barry is of course correct that biased, misleading alarmist hype, and the failure to confront it, makes people sceptical about climate change. Many people have said this is a major factor in their scepticism, as documented in my paper on the subject.

    Even if this is true, it doesn’t change that the science itself doesn’t depend on whether or not the media is biased and promotes misleading alarmist hype (which, I note, you have failed to acknowledge is your opinion, rather than some kind of objective fact). My own personal view is that most of these people are simply finding excuses for their “skepticism” and don’t have the courage to simply accept that the views they hold are their responsibility and theirs alone. Additionally, my expectation is that when it turns out that such people’s “skepticism” was largely unfounded, they will find a reason to blame others, rather than accept that they chose to take a minority position despite all the evidence to the contrary.

    [Wrong as usual. It’s not “my opinion”, it’s what lots of sceptics say makes them sceptical. You could read the Denizens thread at climate etc, and you might learn something, if you weren’t too busy expressing your own ignorant prejudiced opinions.]

    Like

  22. Did everyone enjoy the way Joshua simply paraphrased what Phil Jones himself had admitted, but in a whinier tone of voice, as if that constituted some sort of… I don’t know (just guessing here:) argument?

    Liked by 1 person

  23. ATTP:

    “Additionally, my expectation is that when it turns out that such people’s “skepticism” was largely unfounded,”

    When has that EVER happened? When have you EVER won an argument, let alone proven that someone oughtn’t be a “skeptic”?

    “they chose to take a minority position despite all the evidence to the contrary.”

    ROFL. How dare they! What were they thinking?

    Your scientific illiteracy is showing again, dude. Hint: “minority” is not the antonym of “evidence.” The popularity of an idea is scientifically meaningless. You’ve been spending too much time around a certain casual liar, anti-science activist and one-woman warrior against Western epistemology, haven’t you, Ken? Were you distracted by Naomi’s self-described sexiness, Ken? Is that why your grip on science is even looser than usual?

    Liked by 1 person

  24. Oh, my mistake.

    Disregard my first point if you like, Ken.

    I misread “expectation” as “experience”!

    Liked by 1 person

  25. This sure looks like another example of a silly self-serving climate fantasist saying out loud what his imagination and/or his pocketbook tells him must be the case: Lord Adair Turner blethering about the Paris Agreement on the BBC yesterday.

    Professor David Campbell, an informed reviewer of Adair Turner’s remarks, writes this:

    Everything Lord Turner said about the Paris Agreement and China’s Intended Nationally Determined Contributions was wrong. That a person of his influence says things that will mislead the listening public is regrettable. That the BBC airs such statements without any challenges is a disgrace.

    More details here: http://www.thegwpf.com/lord-turners-misleading-views-on-the-paris-agreement/#sthash.zc1cclrO.dpuf

    Liked by 2 people

  26. “My own personal view is that most of these people are simply finding excuses for their “skepticism” and don’t have the courage to simply accept that the views they hold are their responsibility and theirs alone”

    More incoherence from Ken. I understand that in the climate cult, everybody has to huddle together under a nourishing comfort blanket of shared drivel, but sceptics seem perfectly happy to hold their own opinions, work through their own ideas, examine the pscience etc: all things that are totally lacking in the climate cult

    Liked by 2 people

  27. “but sceptics seem perfectly happy to hold their own opinions”

    All you can do is laugh when cultists make a big deal about “skeptics can’t even seem to agree WITH EACH OTHER on what killed the dinosaurs/why the Younger Dryas ended/estimate climate sensitivity/why God allows evil!”

    I don’t think it’s ever occurred to them that a diversity of hypotheses might be considered perfectly tolerable—let alone desirable—beyond the barbed-wire borders of their Waco compound.

    Like

  28. At least sceptics don’t feel the need to learn what opinions to hold from reading approved websites such as Sceptical Science or from intellectual halfwits equipped with megaphones, such as legendary consensus enforcer BBD. Sceptics are not scared of thinking for themselves.

    Liked by 2 people

Leave a comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.