When you get accused of being, I don't know, let's say "Denier" it doesn't actually do anything but shut you down from having your own opinion or stance on any particular subject. We hear "Far right", "racist" and so on bandied around these days without any real understanding or sense.
You see these people have no real argument or data or evidence but they do have a complete belief in the misguided idea that they are right on, well, just about everything. If you can stop them from yelling at you or closing you down with the above statements you can actually destroy their stance and that's why they close you down.
They are all for freedom of speech and expression as long as it is their freedom of speech and expression and not someone else's. Such is today's entitled mob culture. The hypocrisy of the woke and their unwillingness to listen and learn also does them no favours. In yelling at me that I am a denier they deny me the right to an opinion and turn out to be the very thing that they accuse you of.
"Test Prove", "Studies indicate", "Scientists state" and so on when challenged you find that they do no such thing. So much "science" is modelled by computer these days and then read out as fact and paraded as conclusive proof that something is as they believe it to be. "The science is settled" is another shut you down phrase. Ask a proper scientist if this is so? Of course it isn't, science is never settled. One of my heroes if we are allowed to have them is Richard Feynman and he explained things in simple easy to understand language. One of my favourites is:
"It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong."
And another:
"If it disagrees with experiment, it is wrong. In that simple statement is the key to science. It does not make any difference how beautiful your guess is, it does not make any difference how smart you are, who made the guess, or what his name is — if it disagrees with experiment, it is wrong."
And there, dear reader is the crux of the matter. If you cannot replicate the theorem it's wrong. If you cannot prove what you are saying, it's wrong. No matter how loudly you shut me down and yell at me, you're wrong. If you cannot argue your case and put it simply and elegantly backed by facts (not modelled fiction) you are wrong. I've had 50 years of this and it is worse now than it was 40 or 50 years ago as we didn't have these cults of "science" to deal with. Now a person gains their knowledge from Social Media and places like the BBC who are not fact based anymore and push a line that allows no challenges and you are not at liberty to have your own view beyond that of the State Broadcaster.
Look at the people they bring on to TV as "experts" in one case an Autistic Truant Child is brought on to argue climate change. Not with any scientific knowledge, she hardly attended school, but by having a set of angry keywords about destroying the planet and how it was our fault. Then you get pressure groups portrayed as experts. If my living and purpose was to protect Ants for a living I'd be fighting tooth and Nail for your attention and more importantly your patronage and so I'd be able to make up all sorts of information to secure more funding and a space at the trough in the pigsty.
You see it more and more, and I ask where do you get your information from? These days you can get Academic papers and review them, you can get facts and analyse them, you can see what "tricks" people get up to when demonstrating their side of an argument and if you use logic and a bit of maths you can see right through what is going on but people don't, they are either lazy or indoctrinated that surely "no one would lie to me"
Take words you hear on fact based programmes. Something has declined by 70% OK, so show me the starting point, what actual numbers are we discussing here? Who conducted the experiment, was it a controlled experiment was it UK wide or just in one location and extrapolated? My OH is fed up with me questioning the data. Then there's could, possibly, might used in a scientific way? Something could happen, might happen and so on.
There was a programme about the Lynton and Boscastle floods the other night. Both huge natural disasters. Both have happened before. The words built of the flood plain and once in 400 years event were then succeeded by Global Warming...... Now, hold on, if this has happened before and around the 1600s then I don't know about you but there certainly weren't any SUVs around at the time and CO2 was about 300 ppm not the 420 ppm we have now so what caused it?
A recent nature programme shows Walruses jumping to their deaths off a cliff "committing suicide" due to Global Warming. Later it was noted that a pack of Polar Bears were hunting and like they normally did they drove the poor beasts of a cliff and then feasted on them!
The "facts" that people get are generally for the purpose of click bait and sensationalizing things to sell newspapers and generate traffic to the TV channel etc.
Being fact checked by someone who uses headlines and then closes you down used to be a great sport of mine back in the day. I could wipe you out with facts but these days its best just to steer clear of these people as they neither listen nor comprehend what you say to them, they don't do any research or any analysis and use ridiculous techniques such as yelling insults to get their points across!
They are exactly the thing the accuse you of!