spindoc, scarily enough deviation from the 'norm' is the diagnostic tool of our so called mind scientists. Doubters, and deniers and those different all run the risk of coping a label. This was a favorite tool of Stalin and a trick not unknown to Hitler, among various examples.

As a fan of hot rocks talk of our reptilian brain is just bizarre to me. Skepticism, discrimination and questioning are among the best of our attributes.

Such labelling often only applies to the minority side of an argument and works to censor and to enforce agreement. Even on OLO ad hominem attacks are stock in trade.

And as for Psychiatry and Psychology, it seems the bigger the professions gets the bigger the problems and the number of conditions they name- a real growth industry.

It's nothing new to apply a negative label to someone who holds an opposite view. This is a common tool of the socialist intelligentsia.

A perfect example was when Jean-Paul Sartre said that'Any anti-Communist is a dog'.

And here, anyone who is against waves of non-English-speaking immigrants is labelled as racist, fascist, nazi, white-supremacist etc, just for wanting similar rules applied as for immigrants to non-English-speaking countries.

Where is the balance?

I really don't get the point of this thread.

Scepticism is healthy.

Denial in the face of overwhelming evidence, eg Smoking causes lung cancer, is psychologically questionable.

Next question please.

Spindoc

At the bottom of the following link, they mention the psychobabble you mention.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/mar/09/climate-change-deniers

As far as the gabfest in New York is concerned -

Conference co-sponsors receive the following benefits:
• input into the program regarding speakers and panel topics
• admission to all meals and sessions for up to 20 people
• logo and organization info on all promotional material produced, including advertising prior to the event

There is no fee for sponsorship, but conference co-sponsors are asked to do the following:
• place a link on the homepage of their Web sites to Heartland's web site
• send two or three emails to their membership/donor lists promoting the event
• describe the event in a newsletter or online essay
• get 20 people to attend the event as their guests

Meaning;

Sponsors have had a hand in deciding what the topics of the conference will be (unlike real scientific conferences).

There’s no fee for sponsorship (unusual) but “sponsors” are asked to spread the word about the “conference” and to get people to attend.

That is, the Heartland Institute looked for sponsorship not in the form of sponsorship fees, but in the form of ‘deny-n-delay’ noise ... sow the seeds of doubt, generate noise and promote inaction.

Btw, according to the “conference” registration information, there’s a 20% registration fee discount for signers of the Oregon Petition.

Apparently, they have about 60 sponsors and 800 people registered to attend, that means they are giving away more admissions than people registered to attend. It's likely that almost everyone attending got free admission.

_____

I’m with you on this one Fractelle.

I think many people confuse scientific scepticism with personal scepticism.

Interesting link you provided Q&A. It just goes to show that the extremes on either side of the debate are just as passionate as each other. I find it all a bit sad really.

As an engineer I accept scepticism as one of the primary tools of science, a facet of questioning everything. I have not formed a view either way on AGW, not for the want of trying to get the data I need I might add. That, I think makes me a sceptic however, I do not reject the possibility or even the probability of AGW, therefore I do not accept that I am a denier.

I do not understand why both sides of this debate need to label the opposition, or, as in the case of the article in the Australian, find a medical reason for failing to convince the other side of the merits of their case.

I suspect that because there is no compelling scientific case either way, the debate has simply stalled and become a circular argument. There being no clear circuit breaker, each side is moving away from the actual debate and turning to childish labels. This is symptomatic of an emotive rather than scientific debate.

What really worries me is that if there is indeed a case for GW and it turns out not to be anthropogenic, we, as a species will have demonstrated our ignorance and come up with the answer before we even know what the question was. Then what will we leave our grandchildren?

"Then what will we leave our grandchildren?"

And that is the question we should be asking rather than attaching labels to people.

Excellent post Spindoc.

Whether people believe there is sufficient evidence for AGW or even that our planet is going through a climate cycle beyond our control, I fail to understand why we are arguing about creating a cleaner self sustaining environment for ourselves. You don't need to be a rocket scientist to know that pollution is poisoning our air and water systems, that eventually fossil fuels will run out. Given the science and technology we now have it is (for me) inconceivable that we should argue about doing anything at all (business as usual). There is scope for new profitable industries and (optimistically) a better way of living for us all.

Those who argue for doing nothing at all are not sceptics, they either fear change or have financial interests, or feel threatened by the suggestion that somehow humankind hasn't been as clever as it thinks it is. Or a combination of all of the above.

I think back to how I spent Feb 7 (Black Saturday) in the Dandenong Ranges, I had heard all the warnings, but have to admit I was not prepared to fight or flee if my home became under threat by fire. This lack of preparation caught out many people who, like me, could not image the fury of a fire storm in dry high temperatures. We have learnt the hard way. Since then I was prepared to flee. Four weeks were experienced in a state of anxiety because I was simply being human and hoping if I ignored the warnings the problem would simply go away.

Humans are terrific in a crisis, we may have evolved this way because we are crap are taking preventative action. Not a psychological disorder simply, fatally human.