Quote:Nope. Anyone can be a CAGW skeptic. The analogy is better for the side that considers professional membership as a requirement.


 

 

 

Did you read the link?

 

Yes I did your link. It reads like a propaganda diatribe which works for you because it confirms your bias. It also does not make your statement any less a clear form of projection. 

 

Listening to experts is what rational people do. Thinking you know more than experts because you did some googling to confirm a bias tied to your personal identity is what irrational people do. 

 

 

Did you read this link I posted?

 

<p style="color:rgb(40,40,40);font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;"><a class="bbc_url" href='https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/04/01/how-the-internet-makes-you-think-youre-smarter-than-you-really-are/?utm_term=.efff9a7b5ce7' title="External link">https://www.washingt...m=.efff9a7b5ce7</a>

<p style="color:rgb(40,40,40);font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;"> 

<p style="color:rgb(40,40,40);font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;">“… People mistake access to information for their own personal understanding of the information.”

---