Emil O W Kirkegaard

That is also fair. If there is a good argument to be made that their data is fundamentally inaccurate or distorted, that would, to me, make a difference. I have not seen that argument anywhere.

On the journal. Its definitely not a regular peer reviewed journal. It does not matter to me how it describes itself. It does matter how Carl presented it.

You know, Cathy, THIS should have been the dialogue around Carl's stuff -- and if it uncovered actual living distortions, deceptions, and, most important, errors? I wouldn't defend him.

I think the points Cathy is raising are similar to points that I & others have raised. The parallel with holocaust denial is apropos. Is it wrong to debate details about history? If questions are rejected by mainstream historians why not seek out alternative receptive venues?

You can engage in the same kind of defence for individuals who are in that orbit. Sure they are welcomed by the far right and attend some dubious conferences but isn’t it mostly censorship and guilt by association?

IDK if you missed it but I think your take is way too blacknwhite, something which Cathy and I resolved pretty quickly:https://twitter.com/PsychRabble/status/1124499709639348225 …

https://twitter.com/CathyYoung63/status/1124498961446920192 …

I don’t think you’ve entirely resolved that. You’ve just acknowledged that you can see the problem when it applies to holocaust denial. I agree entirely with Cathy that it is the principle that matters. You don’t seem to be ruling out associations and dodgy conferences as ...