Global Warming Critics - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Saved posts from the old blog area.
#13392672
I was going to vent in Gorkiy but then I remembered I had a blog. Perfect.

People who don't believe in the scientific truth of global warming - sorry, let me correct myself, that's actually perfectly understandable (sort of) if you never looked into the matter - people who firmly believe in the untruth of global warming are ridiculously wrong. I can't even begin to take them seriously. Now, on the face of this, this seems like a non-ideological statement, as being a cocky scientific illiterate and out and out (insert term here) does not really respect ideology... but I just can't ignore the massive correlation between arrogant right-wingers and not believing in global warming.

Here's an article on self-appointed experts. Particularly applicable to the climate debate.

If for some reason you don't believe in global warming go to S&E and take it up with me there. The rest of the post will be predicated under the assumption that you have no idea what you're doing so unsurprisingly you will probably not agree.

Without further ado, here's Redwatch, Climate Style. We're going to go on a McCarthy-Stalin-BNP style witch hunt and name some names. I'll only start with people who have a non-trivial number of posts.

Leading off, in somewhat chronological-reverse-chronological order (threads, then posts):

Galoredk - I don't know what's with this guy; this guy seems to be simply wrong with no other value judgment presentable. At least he can carry on an intelligent conversation and isn't completely intellectually bankrupt. As far as CCDers go he's about as good as you can get. Makes some pretty kooky arguments but oh well.

Huntster - Arguing with this guy is like arguing to a wall. Which insults you from time to time. Loves to quote huge blocks of Wikipedia that are tangentially relevant and declare victory. Which is really just an obnoxious way to argue. Also completely misinterprets studies and still argues like he's never wrong. Doesn't realize that mathematicians can use entirely legitimate "tricks;" no, it's ironclad evidence of fraud.

KPres - Link. Doesn't seem to be aware that decadal predictions have low resolution and a few cold years (high-resolution data) do not contradict models.

tallpaul - I forgot this guy existed. But he kind of obnoxious, if nothing else. I'll reserve comments about other things.

Sandokan - This guy is a lean mean copy and paste machine. I don't know what else he does.

Kman - Link. Doesn't understand the difference between weather and climate. Doesn't understand how chaotic systems can be predictable. Concludes based on his non-understanding that therefore, the AGW theory is all "un-proven science and scare tactics." Thinks Lord Monckton is a genius.

Ronpaulalways - Claims that the vast majority of climate data comes from CRU and that most of climate science hinges on it. It does not. There are many alternative sources. And nothing was ever found to be wrong about the CRU anyway. Believes that conjectures that support "favorite theories" "smell like bullshit" and are therefore "bad science," which is an a priori conclusion because he could think of different answers and assumed that they had not been considered even thought the alternatives were pretty flawed. (To you, I must personally apologize, as you seem like a genuinely civil and perhaps intellectually honest person. Unfortunately your position on this is that I can think of you as nothing less than completely and utterly wrong.)

Phred - I can't find any links at the moment, but I'm pretty sure I remember his being in this camp.

---

Check out the ideologies. Notice something? (Galoredk aside, I don't know where he is on the political spectrum since I really only run into him in S&E.)

Huge coincidence? Massive conspiracy? Evidence of a certain way of thinking? Who knows! Not me!

Join me next time when I complain about out-and-out intellectual thuggery, this time splendidly arising from all corners of the ideological spectrum.
User avatar
By grypo
#13409629
The ideological component of climate denialism is unmistakable. But as for the American neo-liberal conservatism, it goes back even further, starting with evolution or anything anti-biblical, health effects of smoking and fatty foods, water pollution, nuclear winter, etc. Or anything since they lost the political battle over market regulation. And their anti-science campaign has done little to dissuade the mainstream public from being trustful of protection agencies. It's the amalgamation of free-market liberalism and Jesus. Many of the totalitarians understand the basic theory but say things like "it won't be so bad" to free themselves from having to agree to global treaties that breakdown economic sovereignty. I get confused as to why libertarians are so against the basic theories, as environmental tort law would, if applied correctly and expediently, solve that issue. I assume their motivations are about not wanting tort law to interrupt the market in such a drastic way.

I guess the best way to sort this out PoFo style would be to start a poll to allow for naming an ideology and then a stance on AGW theory.
Israel-Palestinian War 2023

It is implausible that the IDF could not or would […]

Moving on to the next misuse of language that sho[…]

@JohnRawls What if your assumption is wrong??? […]

There is no reason to have a state at all unless w[…]