@Zachary1000I replied to a comment, how many times do I have to...

@Zachary1000

I replied to a comment, how many times do I have to say this?

"I definitively proved that you were bullied into your beliefs on "climate change" - just like you were bullied into supporting lockdowns and vaccines and every other position you hold on contentious issues. With sufficient pressure you could be bullied into believing that the sky was green or that men can get pregnant."

How did you definitively prove this? Genuinely there is no way you could prove this. I have not once mentioned a stance on lockdowns so there is definitively no way you could prove I was bullied into any stance. I've also said I think its ridiculous to suggest men could get pregnant. Can you stop with these outlandish claims?

"Literally every post you make confirms this because you always use phrases - like "peer-reviewed" or "scientific" - that highlight your dependency on other people's opinions."

The scientific illiteracy is astounding from you. Scientific journal papers are NOT opinions. That would be an editorial, something I think you would be quite familiar with as I'm pretty sure that's where you think facts come from.

I suppose you think tectonic plates are just someone's opinion? based on this paper about tectonic plates (https://www.publish.csiro.au/AJ/AJ73012)

"If you hadn't been bullied into your beliefs your *only* concern would be consistency of process - ie using the same standard of evidence for all of your beliefs. But such a concept has never once occurred to you has it?"

Again, I don't believe as if faith is required. I understand and or accept. I wish you'd show me some evidence that contradicts any points of mine, instead of just asserting they exist without proving it.

The fact that you have received "great analysis" and "upvotes" goes to show the genuine scientific illiteracy in these threads is alive and well.