Slashdot Mirror

but they have had to broaden the use of the term "propagandized moron" to include people so dedicated to their intellectual bubbles that they have to imagine what their opponents say and believe because they have never actually listened.

The only "climate change deniers" are the idiots in the AGW community who think the climate has been ideal and static in the past and who want to manipulate entire populations and economies to try to establish or re-establish an imagined stable and static climate. People on the right have correctly always believed that the climate always changes, and are thus not afraid of the changes and see it as silly to try to use climate changes to advance particular economic and political policy goals.

HERE is what you have been unwilling to hear, or have been too dense to understand:

People on the right are NOT conflating socialism (an economic system) with "global warming"/'climate change". They are simply paying attention to the political left when the left and people at the IPCC admit that they are using AGW to push for global socialism. As in:

"One must say clearly that we redistribute the world’s wealth by climate policy" and "One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore" - both by Ottmar Edenhofer (co-chair of IPCC Working Group III)

People on the right are perfectly aware of the economic system of socialism and all of the evil and the many millions of people worldwide who have been slaughtered by its proponents in the past century, and are therefore VERY wary of the seeminly endless linkages between socialists and global warming nutters and all the endless papers and web sites that champion using global warming fears to advance the fight for global socialism.

As for "non-controversial scientific facts" - people on the right are very aware of that propaganda method too. The National Socialists once said it was a non-controversial and scientific fact that Jews were sub-human ("unter-menschen", if you prefer) and that they should be eliminated. The old soviets (of the Union os Soviet Socialist Republics) used to claim all sorts of scientific proofs for all their dastardly deeds. It was also once a "non-controversial scientific fact" that there was no such thing as plate tectonics. Science lives on the edge of controversy. The true advances in science have often been the people who disagreed with the concensus (which is NOT the same thing as claiming that every rebel is correct).

Those right wingers you apparently never listen to also like to ask about things like data analysis, data gathering and archive methodology, cost-benefit analysis and so-on. They like to ask why we should for example spend trillions of dollars and make the lives of millions of people worse if we could mitigate the effects for perhaps billions and NOT make all those lives worse. They like to question people who, no matter the data or the direction of temperature change, have the same proposed solutions (global socialism) while not being willing to give up their own damned private jets and yachts.

BTW, couldn't find any communists there, though.

So some marxists wrote an article about global warming. How does this tangent the neutrality of the IPCC or the science community?

Surely you can name some facts that support your claim...

If some programming problem is best solved by using $language, the use of $language for solving that problem doesn't make the developer in question a $language evangelist.

BTW, couldn't find any communists there, though.

I'm not a Maoist - though I am a communist, and have tremendous respect for Mao - but I highly recomment reading this book. It's poetry, and truely inspiring. To brag: I have a copy of the first English edition from 1966, and it's very beautiful.

Also, a note: This new book that everyone loves so much, "Mao: The Unknown Story" is, to put it likely, not to be trusted blindly. Here's a random criticism I dug up, having forgot where I first heard them: http://www.socialistparty.org.uk/2005/401/index.ht ml?id=mp5.htm

Everyone check under the bed tonight, it's those damn commies.

Relevant quote from above link:

"However, the capitalists, many of whom had up to then held Hitler at arms length, took fright at the upsurge in votes for the workers' parties. Consequently, on January 5 1933, Hitler was invited to address a meeting of industrialists and bankers organised by vice-president Baron von Papen, at the home of the aforementioned Baron von Schroeder. At the meeting, Hitler promised to bring an end to democracy in Germany and to smash the labour movement so the capitalists would be free to make their profits in peace. Within ten days, the financial problems of the Nazi party had disappeared."

Crichton statement is that the judging of models based on real-world correlation has ceased. The models are judged by how well they reproduce data (among other things.) The papers cited show examples of models being judged.

I repeat: I repeat: so what? This does *not* show that *in all cases* it is true, and this could very well be precisely what Chrichton is bemoaning. The "I repeat" is in there twice becuase I keep making a point that you ignore. The examples do not disprove Chricton's claim because they are not necessarily represenative of the entire sample.

But Crichton said something much more absolute, and that's where he went awry.

I don't think it was absolute. His statement was, "increasingly," not "entirely" or "all." I think you choose to see an absolutist statement and that is why you think a few examples disprove it. I do not see an absolutist statement and that is why the examples prove nothing to me.

When Crichton says "Nobody believes a weather prediction twelve hours ahead. Now we're asked to believe a prediction that goes out 100 years into the future?", he compares two predictions. The first is a weather prediction; what's the second prediction?

A weather prediction. I expect you to want to reply, "But see! That's not weather, that's climate!"

Which is a good time to point out a question that you've chosen to ignore: If what you say is true, then why did RealClimate.org define things the way they did (specifically, weather == "what you observe", climate == "what you expect")? This is not a rhetorical question. Answer it!

I think the second blanket statement, that all climate scientists that are presenting evidence that humans are causing global warming are motivated by the destruction of capitalism, requires a conspiracy theory of Crichtion proportions.

Nice gushing. Do you have any data to support why a conspiracy theory is necessary in order for some scientists to hate capitalism and champion "global warming is caused by human activity" for the ultimate goal of the destruction of captialism? This is not a rhetorical question!

Have you bounced around the body of climate science writing?

Why would I? I do not trust those scientists!

There are not a lot of blind assertions or unquestioned assumptions anywhere in the peer-reviewed articles; there is skepticism and cross-checking galore. There are people coming up with multiple new approaches to re-measure past phenomenon my independant means. There are articles correcting and refining past observations.

*yawn*

Christians gush similarly about the amount of scholarship that their pet scholars can produce.

It does not strike me as body of science that could be put together by a group of politically motivated anti-capitalists.

You're beating up a strawman. I'm not claiming that a bunch of socialists got together and "put together" a body of science. I'm claiming that there are scientists who have socialist, anti-capitalist leanings, and they are not above using their lofty positions to influence public policy (with the intent of ultimately destroying captialistm). That socialists would gladly use global warming as a means to an end is well documented. A quick google search? turned up a few links .

But you're arguing for my point: science is all about questioning every step, precisely because of human failings.

One of these human failings is that science may be motivated by proving what is already known to be True(TM) rather than observing the world around us and making reasoned

It would be one way to make sure that it only goes to fitting organizations.

It is meant for non-profits.[typo corrected]