Holocaust ... and other forms of Denial

[iceaura]

From your point of view this may be strange, but that there will be a strong correlation between various types of "deniers" is something I have always predicted and explained.

You have neither predicted nor explained it - you have never correctly predicted what will be labeled an absurd denial, and your "explanation" required that the denials involved be opposed to the official Party line, whereas examples such as your AGW denial are aligned with it.

So, the difference between the media believer, the sheeple of the Party line, and the media non-believers, which do not support Party lines without hearing and evaluating counterarguments, is what makes it probable that an "AGW denier" will be also a "racism denier" and so on.

You confuse withholding of support with denial. The reason you confuse the two is that you are unable to evaluate the truth of media representations in these matters, and your errors of evaluation lead you to denial of physical reality (which you mistake for withholding support).

Namely, the readiness to support dissident positions openly. In a totalitarian society this is really dangerous, in the US this can already lead to serious negative consequences too - you can be fired.

If you were to inform yourself of the physical reality, you would discover that AGW recognizers - not deniers - are the ones getting fired from high school teaching positions, losing grants, refused opportunities, etc, in the US.

That is also how it worked for a long time - and may still operate, in some areas - with Darwinian evolution deniers. Those who insisted on recognizing Darwinian theory openly in a school classroom put their jobs at risk. Even at the college level there was risk - at least one college biology department I know of taught classes in "Temporal Phylogenetic Development" to avoid problems.

Meanwhile, AGW deniers have been given the highest status jobs and other positions of power and privilege (including authority over government research and agency funding), along with well-paid sinecures in think tanks and dramatically disproportionate access to plum roles in the public eye (such as paid pundit for the New York Times, about the most honored and valuable punditry position in the US, and very well paid - the otherwise mediocre and unenlightening intellectual Bret Stephens has found himself a much better payday than his talents could ever have obtained on their own).

 

[Schmelzer]

You have neither predicted nor explained it - you have never correctly predicted what will be labeled an absurd denial, and your "explanation" required that the denials involved be opposed to the official Party line, whereas examples such as your AGW denial are aligned with it.

Of course I do not care about your funny idea that AGW denial is some Party line. And I have never tried nor claimed to try to predict what will be the Party line, and, therefore, which people will be named "deniers". Again, what I have predicted is that those who are labelled "deniers" because of one violation of the Party line will be labelled "deniers" in other questions too.

You confuse withholding of support with denial.

No. I withhold support for AGW, that's all, you name me a denier. And there is no confusion, your repeated behavior has made this clear enough. Without of support of the Party line you support is sufficient to be named a denier.

The reason you confuse the two is that you are unable to evaluate the truth of media representations in these matters, and your errors of evaluation lead you to denial of physical reality (which you mistake for withholding support).

Which is simply nonsense. You have not presented even a single peer-reviewed scientific claim which I have denied. And you will be unable to do this, because there are none.

Your claims about what the US media write I have checked once, your source miserably failed in this test. So, you have to live with the fact that I dispose such claims without taking them seriously.

 

[iceaura]

Again, what I have predicted is that those who are labelled "deniers" because of one violation of the Party line will be labelled "deniers" in other questions too.

You just don't know which ones. You can't tell the difference.

No. I withhold support for AGW, that's all, -

So you think that AGW is something you can "withhold support" from. You think of AGW as a line, rather than a discovered and described physical reality.
That's denial, absurd denial.

Which is simply nonsense. You have not presented even a single peer-reviewed scientific claim which I have denied. And you will be unable to do this, because there are none.

I have referred to a few dozen, actually, that you have denied - such as Mann's original "hockey stick" graph, mentioned three or four times now, which you denied with your foolishness about "logarithmic" CO2 - but of course that entire schtick is an attempt by you to change the subject from AGW to some particular paper which in itself would prove nothing.

You are denying AGW, not this or that finding. Your attempts at deflection reveal your inability to confront the absurdity of your denial - a common characteristic of the absurd denier.

Your claims about what the US media write I have checked once,

No, you haven't. You have never checked any claim of mine against a physical reality - not once, not ever. When this was pointed out to you in a couple of instances, you made the claim that it would be too much work - which is fine, no argument there, but leaves the fact that you haven't done it.

So stop saying you have. You haven't. It was too much work, remember?

So, you have to live with the fact that I dispose such claims without taking them seriously.

Everyone who reads your posts here has to live with the fact that you take no physical reality seriously, only media offerings and ideological implications. It limits the possible arguments, and fits a science forum rather poorly, but it is what it is.

It fits the profile of the absurd denial perfectly.

 

[Schmelzer]

Given that iceaura is in complete denial of the part of reality one can see here in the forum, it seems time to stop the discussion. The points worth to be made have been made, iceaura has been very helpful to illustrate totalitarian discussion techniques. Further repetitions make no sense.

 

[Kittamaru]

Given that iceaura is in complete denial of the part of reality one can see here in the forum, it seems time to stop the discussion. The points worth to be made have been made, iceaura has been very helpful to illustrate totalitarian discussion techniques. Further repetitions make no sense.

Now that's funny shit right there...

Oh, wait, you are serious...

*crickets*

 

[iceaura]

Of course I do not care about your funny idea that AGW denial is some Party line.

I named the Party, and specified the line. It's the Republican Party in the US, which is in control of the US government, and the Federal bureaucracy (including the heads of the relevant Congressional committees etc) is currently run by adherents to your denial of AGW.

They have "doubts", identical to yours.

Does that fit your definition of a Party line?

 

[Trippy]

I have referred to a few dozen, actually, that you have denied - such as Mann's original "hockey stick" graph, mentioned three or four times now, which you denied with your foolishness about "logarithmic" CO2 - but of course that entire schtick is an attempt by you to change the subject from AGW to some particular paper which in itself would prove nothing.

The Irony here is that he is, in a sense, right.

The Beer-Lambert law predicts that the transmittance of a sample has a logarithmic relationship to the optical depth of a sample, which in the case of carbon dioxide means it has a logarithmic relationship to the partial pressure of CO2.

The reason I call this ironic is that this has been known since the 1896 when Svante Arrhenius posited that "If the quantity of carbonic acid increases in geometric progression, the augmentation of the temperature will increase in nearly arithmetic progression."

Note that at this time "Atmospheric carbonic acid" was one way of referring to atmospheric carbon dioxide.

Mathematically this is stated as ΔF = αln(C/C[sub]0[/sub]).

What I find amusing about all of this is that this has been known in the scientific community for 120 years and has been incorporated into every every climate model that is used today, but your interlocutor is seemingly ignorant of this.

This formulation led Arrhenius to also state in 1908 (Worlds in the making) that: "If the quantity of carbonic acid in the air should sink to on-half its present percentage, the temperature would fall by about 4°; a diminution to one-quarter would reduce the temperature by 8°. On the other hand, any doubling of the percentage of carbon dioxide would raise the temperature of the earth's surface by 4°; and if the carbon dioxide were increased fourfold, the temperature would rise by 8°."

The concentration of CO2 in 1908 was 299 ppm. Today it is 409 ppm, however in 2015 it was 400 ppm. If a 300ppm increase in CO2 was expected to give an increase in temperature of 4°, then a 101ppm increase in temperature should be expected to give an increase of about 1.7° - before any effects from other forcings such as changes in albedo due to aerosols or or changes in ice-cap and vegetation distribution.

In 2015 the global temperature anomaly was 0.9°.

 

[iceaura]

The Irony here is that he is, in a sense, right.

The Beer-Lambert law predicts that the transmittance of a sample has a logarithmic relationship to the optical depth of a sample, which in the case of carbon dioxide means it has a logarithmic relationship to the partial pressure of CO2.

No, he wasn't. He was using that to deny AGW, in the new standard denier's format of "sure there is some warming, but not from the CO2 boost", now featured in the Republican media feeds. It replaces the former "warming is a myth, rigged data, not happening" Republican Party line standard we were subjected to until recently.

What I find amusing about all of this is that this has been known in the scientific community for 120 years and has been incorporated into every every climate model that is used today, but your interlocutor is seemingly ignorant of this.

He's been linked to all that stuff. He is not merely ignorant, but willfully so - actively denying and rejecting information to which he has been linked as well as exposed on this forum. He's seen it - and dismissed it as a "Party line".

That's what classifies AGW denial as one of the absurd ones - like Holocaust denial, or Jim Crow denial in the US.

Refer to his posting, the foolishness I was replying to, not your own correct comprehension of physical reality.

 

[Schmelzer]

The discussion becomes really absurd.

What I find amusing about all of this is that this has been known in the scientific community for 120 years and has been incorporated into every every climate model that is used today, but your interlocutor is seemingly ignorant of this.

Given that the "interlocutor" seems to be me, what is the base for this strange claim that I would be ignorant of this? I have mentioned that the CO2 temperature effect is logarithmic, simply as a well-known fact. And I have never denied that an increase of CO2 leads to some increase of temperature.

He was using that to deny AGW, in the new standard denier's format of "sure there is some warming, but not from the CO2 boost", now featured in the Republican media feeds. It replaces the former "warming is a myth, rigged data, not happening" Republican Party line standard we were subjected to until recently.

And, as usual, iceaura answers with yet another lie. I have never supported such claims, neither "there is no warming" nor "warming is not from CO2". Nonetheless, the usual Two Minutes Hate follows:

He is not merely ignorant, but willfully so - actively denying and rejecting information to which he has been linked as well as exposed on this forum. He's seen it - and dismissed it as a "Party line".
That's what classifies AGW denial as one of the absurd ones - like Holocaust denial, or Jim Crow denial in the US.

 

[Trippy]

What I find amusing about all of this is that this has been known in the scientific community for 120 years and has been incorporated into every every climate model that is used today, but your interlocutor is seemingly ignorant of this.

Given that the "interlocutor" seems to be me, what is the base for this strange claim that I would be ignorant of this? I have mentioned that the CO2 temperature effect is logarithmic, simply as a well-known fact. And I have never denied that an increase of CO2 leads to some increase of temperature.

I have seen you repeatedly query within this thread whether or not climate models incorporate the logarithmic relationship. You are therefore ignorant of the fact that they do, and have done for the last 120 years.

Or you're trolling and/or arguing in bad faith by asking.

 

[Schmelzer]

I have seen you repeatedly query within this thread whether or not climate models incorporate the logarithmic relationship.

No you haven't. Because I know that they do.

I hope this is a misunderstanding. But, nonetheless, one you have started personal accusations based on this, prove your point by an explicit quote, with link, or take your accusation back. Else, I will call you a liar too.

 

[iceaura]

And, as usual, iceaura answers with yet another lie. I have never supported such claims, neither "there is no warming" nor "warming is not from CO2". Nonetheless, the usual Two Minutes Hate follows:

You have not been accused of claiming there is no warming - strawman, something you use frequently when you want to call people liars.
You have definitely and explicitly stated that "some" of the warming that might or might not be happening - only some - might be from CO2, and illustrated what you mean by handwaving at the standard direct logarithmic response of a CO2 boost. You described this as small enough to not be a great worry. That was some of the evidence you posted in support of your "doubting" AGW, and declaring its descriptions as well as its predictions to be a "Party line".

You even described AGW as something you could choose to "support" or "withhold support" from - as you would other political causes or propaganda and persuasion efforts.

And in this, as in so many issues, you parrot near-verbatim the media feed of the propaganda wing of American fascism- the Party line of the American Republican Party

- which currently controls completely, and has for decades been the single most significant influence on, publicly funded scientific research in the US -

in its efforts to deny AGW.

That is the denial of AGW I pointed at. And you repeat this denial in these very posts where you claim I am lying about your denials - further illustrating the absurd world the absurd denier lives in.

Because this is not unique to AGW.

Surveys taken in Poland over the years show a large percentage of Poles to this day think their economic problems are due to Jews in the big cities of Poland owning their banks and dominating their land ownership and controlling all the money in Poland, for example. They weren't killed, see - they are hiding, sneaking around, and simultaneously owning and controlling everything.

And Jim Crow denial in the US is practically a standard ideology - an accepted position in political debate. Slavery ended in 1867, see, and so black people's problems are of their own making by now - it's been 150 years, after all.

And so forth.

 

[Schmelzer]

You have definitely and explicitly stated that "some" of the warming that might or might not be happening - only some - might be from CO2, and illustrated what you mean by handwaving at the standard direct logarithmic response of a CO2 boost. You described this as small enough to not be a great worry. That was some of the evidence you posted in support of your "doubting" AGW, and declaring its descriptions as well as its predictions to be a "Party line".

And what is your problem with this? Are you unaware that in the standard AGW the direct CO2 effect (which is sufficiently easy to compute) is also only some part of the global warming? With the other, much greater (to obtain something one can sell as a catastrophe) part by other effects, backreactions which enhance the warming?

This would be a new reason for being called a denier - simply for repeating the standard AGW claims.

 

[Trippy]

No you haven't. Because I know that they do.

I hope this is a misunderstanding. But, nonetheless, one you have started personal accusations based on this, prove your point by an explicit quote, with link, or take your accusation back. Else, I will call you a liar too.

1. You asked for an explanation of my observation that you appeared to be ignorant of a fact, I gave you that explanation along with two alternative hypotheses, none of which at this time represent personal attacks - many people are ignorant of many facts, including myself. I'm quite confident, for example, that you're ignorant on the inner workings of the internal politics of Namibia, for example.
2. Sure thing:

Of course, to test this hypothesis one needs some conception of reality. But not that much. The general hypothesis can be, for example, tested in domains where science has made some progress despite the political pressure, so that the scientific version of reality already differs from the political wishes, and see what has been written before this. Or you can simply use particular facts. Like that the effect of CO2 is logarithmic: To reach the same heating effect (1 degree or so without any amplifications) you have to double the CO2 content. How is this fact presented in the literature?

http://www.sciforums.com/threads/holocaust-and-other-forms-of-denial.158929/page-22#post-3452639

I quote this post as evidence because the literature discusses the climate change models, and go into the details of their inner workings.

If you know that the logarithmic response of temperature to CO2 levels is 120 years old and has been debated extensively in that time, then you know how it it presented in the literature.

If you know that the various climate change models incorporate the logarithmic response of temperature to CO2 levels, then you know how it is presented in the literature.

If you were genuinely asking the question "How is this fact represented in the literature?" then you would appear to me to be ignorant of the fact that the answer is "It has been extensively debated and discussed over the last 120 years, as well as being discussed in the papers outlining climate models ."

If you were asking a question that you already knew the answer to, that's where we start getting into the realm of trolling and arguing in bad faith.

 

[Schmelzer]

If you were genuinely asking the question "How is this fact represented in the literature?" then you would appear to me to be ignorant of the fact that the answer is "It has been extensively debated and discussed over the last 120 years, as well as being discussed in the papers outlining climate models ."

If you were asking a question that you already knew the answer to, that's where we start getting into the realm of trolling and arguing in bad faith.

Sounds like a misinterpretation of the meaning of the question.

Some context:

Of course, to test this hypothesis one needs some conception of reality. But not that much. The general hypothesis can be, for example, tested in domains where science has made some progress despite the political pressure, so that the scientific version of reality already differs from the political wishes, and see what has been written before this. Or you can simply use particular facts. Like that the effect of CO2 is logarithmic: To reach the same heating effect (1 degree or so without any amplifications) you have to double the CO2 content. How is this fact presented in the literature?

And now some reformulation of the question.
"Now, to test this hypothesis, one can simply look how this fact is presented in the literature."

Let's also note that to answer the question "How is this fact presented in the literature?" it is not sufficient to say "It has been extensively debated and discussed over the last 120 years, as well as being discussed in the papers outlining climate models ." Why? Because the question is not if, but how. As you can see from the post itself, for politicized sciences there are typical patterns of how some politically unwanted facts are presented. The pattern was explicitly given:

Seems, you have completely forgotten the general picture for politicized sciences: The degree of distortion by political influence than increases in the following sequence:
1.) The content of scientific papers, especially footnotes.
2.) Conclusions and introductions of scientific papers,
3.) Abstracts of scientific papers,
4.) Titles of scientific papers,
5.) Statements made by scientists in popular media,
6.) Statements of journalists in media presentations where scientists also say something
7.) Statements of journalists in other media presentations.

So, to answer this "how" question one would have to study all this, and to compare all this. Much study of detail, which I have, of course, not done and not claimed to have done for AGW.

 

[iceaura]

So, to answer this "how" question one would have to study all this, and to compare all this. Much study of detail, which I have, of course, not done and not claimed to have done for AGW.

Or as I noted long ago, when you last claimed to have refused to "support" AGW on the basis of evidence: no, you didn't. You posted nothing on the basis of evidence.

As you can see from the post itself, for politicized sciences there are typical patterns of how some politically unwanted facts are presented.

But to use that you have to know something about the facts, at a minimum which ones are "unwanted" and why. You don't.

So you got the political pressure wrong - backwards - because your presumptions of the media coverage were mistaken and you had no other information.

Then you refused to correct your presumptions, or re-evaluate your approach, on the basis of evidence and information provided to you. So your entire analysis of the political influence on the public presentation of the science was garbage - every supposed correction for influence was in the wrong direction, every conclusion you came to was bizarre nonsense.

Ending with the crowning absurdity of your own justification, your very own posting: you described yourself as simply and justifiably not "supporting" AGW, and those who did as promoting a "Party line".

Are you unaware that in the standard AGW the direct CO2 effect (which is sufficiently easy to compute) is also only some part of the global warming?

Which means your denial of AGW had no basis in that fact - contrary to your claims, and contrary to your posting where you brought it up.

So, to answer this "how" question one would have to study all this, and to compare all this. Much study of detail, which I have, of course, not done and not claimed to have done for AGW.

And yet you have made several claims of fact based on your presumptions about these details, including assertions about the direction of political pressure on the researchers, claims of specific directions of bias in the media coverage, and deductions of the physical reality involved based on your corrections of these pressures and biases.

You claimed, for example, that the large preponderance of bad news about the spread of bad organisms under AGW revealed bias in the media coverage, and that indicated bias and pressure on the science itself toward emphasizing and focusing on bad news of certain kinds. You insisted on it - you declared your presumption of missing good news about good organisms was an obvious fact, that a significant amount of good news or benefits from AGW's likely effects on good organisms had to exist, and its absence pointed to bias of the kind you had already presumed.

You claimed, for example, that the occasional mentions of dramatically lethal and agriculturally destructive heat wave possibility were obvious exaggerations (offering as evidence that the equatorial rain forests were very fertile and well populated, so heat itself was clearly not a problem for agriculture), and so you could see the direction of political pressure and media bias by observing the direction of these obvious exaggerations.

And so forth - one silly mistaken presumption and ignorant posting of bs after another, with one thing in common: they all aligned perfectly with the wingnut media feed of the American authoritarian corporate right, being used to support the Republican Party's agenda: you have been posting the Republican Party line, right down to specific vocabulary and particular arguments.

That line is AGW denial. And AGW denial is absurd.

At first the notion that a major political Party would adopt an absurd denial might seem a bit strange. But a moment's reflection restores memory and reflection: the Big Lie is a well-established tactic.

An question remains: has an absurd denial achieved significant influence without powerful political support from authoritarians?

 

[Schmelzer]

Or as I noted long ago, when you last claimed to have refused to "support" AGW on the basis of evidence: no, you didn't. You posted nothing on the basis of evidence.

Yet another lie. Quote please.
I have always said that I do not support AGW, because I have not studied the question in detail, which would be necessary given the political pressure.

But to use that you have to know something about the facts, at a minimum which ones are "unwanted" and why. You don't.

A few facts I know, for example the logarithmic character of the CO2 effect. And the simple fact that there have to be at least some positive effects of global warming. But such positive facts are clearly unwanted, as can be seen form the media hystery where they do not exist.

You claimed, for example, that the large preponderance of bad news about the spread of bad organisms under AGW revealed bias in the media coverage, and that indicated bias and pressure on the science itself toward emphasizing and focusing on bad news of certain kinds. You insisted on it - you declared your presumption of missing good news about good organisms was an obvious fact, that a significant amount of good news or benefits from AGW's likely effects on good organisms had to exist, and its absence pointed to bias of the kind you had already presumed.

Yes. All one needs for this is looking sometimes at the media - whenever climate change is covered, it is something horrible. At compare this with a little bit of common sense. Which tells that the global temperature is not really optimal now, and some increase would be, at least in the long range, useful. And that more CO2 has some positive effects on plant growth.

with one thing in common: they all aligned perfectly with the wingnut media feed of the American authoritarian corporate right, being used to support the Republican Party's agenda: you have been posting the Republican Party line, right down to specific vocabulary and particular arguments.

Except that I did not support at all both main lines of argumentation you have mentioned:

He was using that to deny AGW, in the new standard denier's format of "sure there is some warming, but not from the CO2 boost", now featured in the Republican media feeds. It replaces the former "warming is a myth, rigged data, not happening" Republican Party line standard we were subjected to until recently.

 

[iceaura]

I have always said that I do not support AGW, because I have not studied the question in detail, which would be necessary given the political pressure.

You continue to deny AGW, based on presumptions of political pressure your denial - your insistence on dismissing physical reality as a "Party line" - has misled you into.

A few facts I know, for example the logarithmic character of the CO2 effect. And the simple fact that there have to be at least some positive effects of global warming. But such positive facts are clearly unwanted, as can be seen form the media hystery where they do not exist.

Neither one of those facts is unwanted, neither one is "positive", both are commonly and routinely available in the scientific and science-explanatory literature where AGW is discussed and research reported, and (giving you all benefit of the doubt) your fantasies about the media seem to be confusing you rather badly - rather than confusing others, as was their original purpose in the media feed that fooled you.

Except that I did not support at all both main lines of argumentation you have mentioned:

The one was before your time here. The other you did.
You specifically and explicitly supported the "sure there is some warming, but not from the CO2 boost" line - that was your entire point in expressing "doubt" about AGW beyond the logarithmic direct response you introduced and described as not a worry.
And you did that in the same terms and using the same basic arguments etc as the wingnut feed from places like the American Heritage Institute, the various corporate-funded denial blogs like Watts Up With That, the speeches of Republican politicians and their hired "experts" in American government hearings, the "experts" appearing on Fox News and the like, and so forth.

Absurd denial - it's inventive stuff. Dealing with these people - the Birthers, the Truthers, the Jim Crow deniers, the Holocaust deniers - is like nailing jello to a tree.

 

[Schmelzer]

Neither one of those facts is unwanted, neither one is "positive", both are commonly and routinely available in the scientific and science-explanatory literature where AGW is discussed and research reported, and (giving you all benefit of the doubt) your fantasies about the media seem to be confusing you rather badly - rather than confusing others, as was their original purpose in the media feed that fooled you.

If you think that the media report fairly as about the positive, as about the negative consequences of global warming, fine. We obviously read quite different media. You have, of course, the chance to correct my wrong impression mainly from German media by posting various links to mainstream mass media presenting and discussion positive aspects of climate change. But if you choose not to do this, so what? I will simply think that you have no such links, even if your bookmark list is full of them.

You specifically and explicitly supported the "sure there is some warming, but not from the CO2 boost" line - that was your entire point in expressing "doubt" about AGW beyond the logarithmic direct response you introduced and described as not a worry.

Wrong, and given the many clarifications I have given about this simply a lie. I fully accept that there is some CO2-based warming. So, I do not only not claim that there is none, I do not even express any doubt about the size of the pure CO2 effect. I have no opinion about what is beyond the CO2 effect, which is a much more complex question.

And you did that in the same terms and using the same basic arguments etc as the wingnut feed from places like the American Heritage Institute, ...

I acknowledge that I would better have used PC to distribute my insinuations. Using evil language has betrayed me. Too late now, I know that I'm already identified as being an enemy of the people.

Dealing with these people - the Birthers, the Truthers, the Jim Crow deniers, the Holocaust deniers - is like nailing jello to a tree.

Yes, dealing with them using argumentation is hopeless, imprisoning is what is necessary, not?

 

[iceaura]

If you think that the media report fairly as about the positive, as about the negative consequences of global warming, fine.

I don't care what your chosen media report, and have no opinion. AGW is not a media event, and you have been informed of that fact.

(meanwhile: The examples you posted of what you regard as unfair media - like the preponderance of bad news about bad organisms rather than good, or the warnings about rapidly increasing potential for destructive heat waves - are (when de-exaggerated from your descriptions) the facts of the matter, unfortunate features of AGW discovered by research.)

So I have no reason, based on your descriptions of your media, to assume they are biased at all. It seems likely to me, based on my experience with sensationalist media in the US, that sensational disasters get more press than incremental betterments if any in your media as well - but your examples and descriptions are of your own bias and error rather than the media's).

I fully accept that there is some CO2-based warming

Which you described, explicitly, as the logarithmic response to the CO2 boost. Everything else you "doubt".
That is the current standard Republican Party AGW denial. That is you denying AGW, and using the language of the Republican Party line in the US to do it.

I acknowledge that I would better have used PC to distribute my insinuations. Using evil language has betrayed me

Using silly invented word games that cause you to declare the entire world except Cuba and NK to have "fascist economies" has betrayed you. Getting the direction of implication backwards in the relationship between fascism and capitalism has betrayed you.
And so forth.

Too late now, I know that I'm already identified as being an enemy of the people.

You're not an enemy of the Republican Party in the US and its financial backers, media operations, etc - you're best buddies. That's a lot of people, and they control the government.

Yes, dealing with them using argumentation is hopeless, imprisoning is what is necessary, not?

Unless you establish representative government, deriving its just powers from the consent of the governed, etc. Then - as in the US, for many lifetimes now - all these absurd denials get published and nothing bad happens to anyone - unless you count being laughed at a bad thing.

You could even make some money, in the US, with your AGW denial - the Koch brothers pay pretty well for actual math and science guys willing to to on TV and lend their reputations and credentials to the battle against government taxes and regulations. Right up your alley - you wouldn't have to change a thing from your posting here.

Your go-to strawman. Because when you can't see fascism, you can't see its absence either.

Eventually, down that road, you live in a world of competing and equivalently biased, equivalently unsupported, equivalently consequential or inconsequential media claims. No reality at all, after a while.

And so you throw it away - the history, the events, the real world in which real freedom is is established by adults in a community governing themselves, you discard. You invite Putins and Trumps to rule over you, because why not?

Your only freedom then is in the niches of wilderness and the aftermaths of disaster - when war, famine, or plague has crippled the rulers and destroyed the ability of civilization to oppress. You may well get your freedom, that way, from AGW - a benefit of denial that is looking increasingly likely.