Report links global warming with ment...

Report links global warming with mental illness; 'skeptical environmentalist' scoffs

There are 12 comments on the The Daily Caller story from Aug 31, 2011, titled Report links global warming with mental illness; 'skeptical environmentalist' scoffs. In it, The Daily Caller reports that:

Matthew Boyle is a reporter at The Daily Caller. He studied journalism at Flagler College in St.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at The Daily Caller.

Fun Facts

Albuquerque, NM

#1 Aug 31, 2011
Impaired reasoning appears to be another effect of percieved global warming. But you know, if the mind believes something enough, it can impose a separate reality.

The science has to be pretty da** sparse to try to support climate mitigation with this.

“Happy, warm and comfortable”

Since: Oct 10

Mountain retreat, SE Spain

#2 Aug 31, 2011
It certainly appears to have affected a few alarmists who post here, some more than others, particularly in Washington State.
NobodyYouKnow

Nepean, Canada

#3 Sep 1, 2011
For the last time, voting Republican may be linked to denial of AGW but it is NOT defined as a mental illness. Maybe the anxiety, depression, post-traumatic stress and substance abuse are from the paralyzing fear of the future. It is a big unknown and these conservatives types like to hide from change. Any change.

Now, reading Lomborg. THAT may be a sign of diminished mental capacity..

“Happy, warm and comfortable”

Since: Oct 10

Mountain retreat, SE Spain

#4 Sep 2, 2011
Talk about mental illnes and look who who pops in:
NobodyYouWantToKnow wrote:
For the last time, voting Republican may be linked to denial of AGW
Very few people 'deny' AGW, the majority of dissenters are dubious of it's power.
There's a subtle, but very distinct difference between denial and scepticism.
NobodyYouKnow

Nepean, Canada

#5 Sep 2, 2011
Earthling-1 wrote:
There's a subtle, but very distinct difference between denial and scepticism.
I absolutely agree, but it is hardly subtle. It is simply that to be 'skeptical', you need solid data and good science to show that there is a BASIS for skepticism.

To be in denial is a much lower standard that even you can meet. For denial you need nothing more than to deny (for whatever reason you desire).

“Happy, warm and comfortable”

Since: Oct 10

Mountain retreat, SE Spain

#6 Sep 2, 2011
NobodyYouWantToKnow wrote:
I absolutely agree, but it is hardly subtle.
Maybe in your world.
NoFactNoHope wrote:
It is simply that to be 'skeptical'
Sceptical, no K, Mr Undoubtably Spelt Fourty.
NoFactNoHope wrote:
you need solid data and good science to show that there is a BASIS for skepticism.
On the contrary, laymen sceptics need nothing of the sort.
NoFactNoHope wrote:
To be in denial is a much lower standard that even you can meet.
I deny nothing, you can beieve whatever you wish.
NoFactNoHope wrote:
For denial you need nothing more than to deny (for whatever reason you desire).
It's way past time you learned the difference between denial and scepticism.
-
You deny that forty was spelt without a U (except in the USA) when you went to school in 60s Ontario, and even though you're unable to produce any evidence, you still stand by that claim, which makes you a spelling denier.
You claim that epistemologists compile dictionaries, that ice calving is restricted by size, that, "the equator doesn't have season," that cars can be charged with road collisions, that vikings didn't know how to live in a warmer Greenland, that, "Deforestations is a consequence of AGW," that Alberta is a country, that, "insects and plants" don't qualify as species, that, "Scientific laws" aren't science, that predictions are just for astrologers, that ethanol is, "a very workable and effective solution, that America has two political parties, that, "Climate and weather are not 'linked', and that 'fruiting plants' are especially chosen by bees for, "polination?"
-
Do you see where this is leading yet, Mr Undoubtably Spelt Fourty?
NobodyYouKnow

Nepean, Canada

#7 Sep 2, 2011
NobodyYouKnow wrote:
<quoted text>
I absolutely agree, but it is hardly subtle.
Earthling-1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Maybe in your world.
I do not know what world you inhabit, so yes. In my world (earth aka terra or Sol 3). You world seems to be a fantasy land you create in your own mind. That is why you spend so much time on trivialities instead of substance.
NobodyYouKnow wrote:
<quoted text>
It is simply that to be 'skeptical',
Earthling-1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Sceptical, no K, Mr Undoubtably Spelt Fourty
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skepticism

You claim to be all knowing about epistemology of all words, yet you get this so wrong.

http://www.ukskeptics.com/article.php...

MOST of the world uses the spelling that I do. But I do not complain, since in YOUR home country, the spelling IS with a c. I must say though that it is totally meaningless noise in the context of the discussion. You have no real arguments to present?
NobodyYouKnow wrote:
<quoted text>
you need solid data and good science to show that there is a BASIS for skepticism.
Earthling-1 wrote:
<quoted text>
On the contrary, laymen sceptics need nothing of the sort.
Laymen or scientists, the meaning of the word in the SCIENTIFIC context is the same. It is the people (ususally working scientists) who believe that they have evidence AGAINST a proposed theory.

But laymen or scientists do not need evidence to be IN DENIAL.
NobodyYouKnow wrote:
<quoted text>
To be in denial is a much lower standard that even you can meet.
Earthling-1 wrote:
<quoted text>
I deny nothing, you can beieve whatever you wish.
NobodyYouKnow wrote:
<quoted text>
For denial you need nothing more than to deny (for whatever reason you desire).
Lie. You have repeatedly denied that AGW or the resulting climate change is a real problem. You still have no evidence to back that claim. But I would agree that MOST of your posts are ad-hominem or spam.
Earthling-1 wrote:
<quoted text>
It's way past time you learned the difference between denial and scepticism.
That you do not know the difference is patent. To YOU they are the same thing, so it begs the question, why have two words for the same thing? It is MY evidence that they are NOT the same thing.

http://www.sciskep.com/2009/05/04/skepticism-...

The 'misuse' of the word by laymen is in no way indicative that it's MEANING has changed.

“Happy, warm and comfortable”

Since: Oct 10

Mountain retreat, SE Spain

#8 Sep 2, 2011
NobodyYouWantToKnow wrote:
I do not know what world you inhabit, so yes. In my world (earth aka terra or Sol 3). You world seems to be a fantasy land you create in your own mind. That is why you spend so much time on trivialities instead of substance.
Yes, I recall how well you remember:
LessFactMoreHype wrote:
Alberta is not my country
Remember?
NobodyYouWantToKnow wrote:
You claim to be all knowing about epistemology of all words, yet you get this so wrong.
How many more times must I tell you, Epistemology definition:
The branch of philosophy that studies the nature of knowledge, its presuppositions and foundations, and its extent and validity.
Lexicographer
A person who compiles dictionaries.
NoFactNoHope wrote:
MOST of the world uses the spelling that I do.
Nowhere in the English speaking world has forty been spelt with a U for over 200 years, Mr Undoubtably Spelt Fourty.
NoFactNoHope wrote:
But I do not complain, since in YOUR home country, the spelling IS with a c.
The British English spelling is 'sceptic' and the last I heard, Canada still uses British English spelling, Mr Undoubtably Spelt Fourty.
Here's a reminder for you:
LessFactMoreHype wrote:
Here in Canada we use actual English and the correct spelling in English is four.. and fourty, etc. I gather than English in Spain is getting contaminated with American mispelling?

http://www.topix.com/forum/news/global-warmin...
NoFactNoHope wrote:
I must say though that it is totally meaningless noise in the context of the discussion. You have no real arguments to present?
Except that you're rarely right.
NoFactNoHope wrote:
Laymen or scientists, the meaning of the word in the SCIENTIFIC context is the same. It is the people (ususally working scientists) who believe that they have evidence AGAINST a proposed theory.
But laymen or scientists do not need evidence to be IN DENIAL.
Scepticism isn't the domain of scientists only.
NoFactNoHope wrote:
Lie. You have repeatedly denied that AGW or the resulting climate change is a real problem. You still have no evidence to back that claim.
You have no real evidence to prove that it it is a real problem.
NoFactNoHope wrote:
But I would agree that MOST of your posts are ad-hominem or spam.
ad hominem Adverb
1.(of an argument or reaction) Arising from or appealing to the emotions and not reason or logic.
2. Attacking an opponent's motives or character rather than the policy or position they maintain.
Spam
Send the same message indiscriminately to (large numbers of recipients) on the Internet.
NoFactNoHope wrote:
That you do not know the difference is patent. To YOU they are the same thing, so it begs the question, why have two words for the same thing?
Your bafflegab seems to have advanced, get back to me when you manage to remember that 'epistemologists' don't compile dictionaries.
-
Do you still maintain that forty is spelt with a U, that ice calving is restricted by size, that, "the equator doesn't have season," that cars can be charged with road collisions, that vikings didn't know how to live in a warmer Greenland, that, "Deforestations is a consequence of AGW," that Alberta is a country, that, "insects and plants" don't qualify as species, that, "Scientific laws" aren't science, that predictions are just for astrologers, that ethanol is, "a very workable and effective solution, that America has two political parties, that, "Climate and weather are not 'linked', and that 'fruiting plants' are especially chosen by bees for, "polination?"

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#9 Sep 4, 2011
AGW is an evangelical religion in the exact same manner as the Bible-based faiths that will look you in the face and tell you Jesus loves you, but you're going to Hell unless you believe what they believe. In the case of global warming, we all have basic human rights, as long as we believe what these poor deluded evangelical climate alarmists believe.

Jesus isn't going to return. The tooth fairy is a depraved homosexual who is obsessed with the mouths of young children. Acute Global Warming is a way to control the ignorant masses of do-gooders who are too sinful to be Bible bangers.

To those who are sure our destruction is imminent because of global warming, why are you using a computer? Do you have any idea how much fossil fuel it takes to fuel your computer, your ISP, the electricity that powers these things. If you REALLY believed all this global warming garbage, you'd go live in a cave somewhere. You carbon mongers.

“Happy, warm and comfortable”

Since: Oct 10

Mountain retreat, SE Spain

#10 Sep 5, 2011
NobodyYouWantToKnow wrote:
You claim to be all knowing about epistemology of all words
Did you check the meaning of epistemology yet, Mr Undoubtably Spelt Fourty?
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/episte...
Did you ever manage to find any link to show that forty was ever spelt with a U within the last 200 years yet?
How about, "undoubtably," have you checked to see if such a word exists?
NoFactNoHope wrote:
I was very good at spelling. And fourty was one of those words you have to be careful with. I remember the spelling from the dictionary quite clearly. It showed FOURTY as the correct spelling and FORTY as an american invention.
You're not 'good at spelling' and no English dictionary was ever printed with 'fourty' in it.

“Happy, warm and comfortable”

Since: Oct 10

Mountain retreat, SE Spain

#11 Oct 4, 2014
I'm still wondering if Mr Undoubtably Spelt Fourty will ever respond to the above questions.

“CO2 is Gaseous Love”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#12 Oct 5, 2014
Report links global warming with mental illness; 'skeptical environmentalist' scoffs
I believe it, warmists are nuts!

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Infectious Diseases Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Vaccine opponents are gaining traction in Washi... 8 hr Samson 8
News Canadian tourists hit hard by Zika last year Mar '17 next 1
News Trump's health pick Tom Price refuses to say wh... Jan '17 tomin cali 4
News In Our View: Vaccines are Critical Jan '17 FAKE NEWS 1
News US: Hepatitis C batters a state unable to affor... Dec '16 Just Saying 4
News Scientists say nuts to heart disease Dec '16 Ferrerman 21
News Flu rising, but not rampant yet Dec '16 BPT 2
More from around the web