User

In the past, I mainly wrote contributions to climate change to counteract the disinformation of the deniers of anthropogenic climate change.

Meanwhile, as a former skeptic, I also write contributions on paranormal topics. What I am particularly aware of:

That the argumentation patterns of the skeptic and GWUP hardly differ from those of the deniers of human-made climate change.

One cries (like the deniers of anthropogenic climate change) only after proofs of paranormal phenomena, but if one provides them with the corresponding references, they are hardly ready to do their own research to get a picture of paranormal research.

Even university researchers such as Ian Stevenson are discredited with the same methods that a Professor Rahmstorf must be able to learn from climate research, and one calls on foreign professors who argue only with half knowledge.

You make it a accusation not to mention any sources. But if one calls a valid source that would be quickly verifiable, then only lazy excuses do not have to accept the source.

Dear skeptics, if you do not accept any sources that do not correspond to the preconceived world image, then best not ask for sources.

The Skeptic movement should be renamed to the Leugner movement, because with true scepticism your arguments have little in common, because a real sceptic asks his own perspectives to constantly revise and develop them.