So it looks that that article takes an unscientific polling of blog goers to say that hard core disbelievers of anything they are told also disbelieve MSM reports on climate science... and then tries to use word association to launch an ad hominem attack on all people of a general libertarian persuasion.

Clever line of attack.

Interestingly enough, the papers link between cultural cognition (to use the papers term) and dispensation to believe facts and opinions from certain sources was *precisely* the case I was making in the other thread, where you jumped on me with the massive ad hominem attacks. So suffice to say, that is one assertion made by the paper that I agree with - as I have pointed out elsewhere.

I find it humorous and ironic that the type of example used to make the point will so completely dominate your reaction. If the example used revolves around an "example case" you agree with then you are happy to make the same point - however if the "example case" is something you do not agree with, you go nuclear ad hominem and assault the decision making process of the person. Except in regards to the fact that WTC7 is unexplained you actually appeared to agree with that and I seem to recall you saying that the video hammering on it was justified - so you did not even seem to be in rabid disagreement with the example used.

Curious.

So if I make a point that cultural cognition has an effect on what people are predisposed to readily accept as truth and that people should be aware of that very human tendency I am a conspiracy nut. Yet if a paper uses an unscientific poll of blog goers to make the same point but simultaneously bashes your own ideological foes its something you feel is worth posting?

For who could be free when every other man's humour might domineer over him? - John Locke (2nd Treatise, sect 57)