• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

How To Be A Global Warming Sceptic

Just stumbled on this rather good spoof of GWS. Sample:-
The global warming "theory" was created by a cabal of liberal secular climate scientists, who held a series of secret meetings with Al Qaeda to draw up the Ultimate Plan to Destroy American Civilization.

With the help of nefarious forces such as bears, this Satanic coalition created a gigantic unholy edifice, the Scientific Establishment, whose aim was to discredit capitalism and facilitate a New World Order of Islamo-Communism — all by spreading the cruel lie of global warming. This Scientific Establishment then proceeded to create an oppressive hierarchy of inquisitors called the "IPCC",[1] whose function was to spread the Word of Satan and burn disbelievers at the stake

One of the links is to this list, which I wish I'd seen a while ago. It would've saved me some time!
 
TrueSceptic said:
Some of his list I would not object to all. I am just trying to show how lazy and untrustworthy he is. :)
Click to expand...

I'm trying to demonstrate that he's an idiot. Division of labour is sound practice.

It strikes me that we of the anti-GWS faction have the advantage of knowing our enemy pretty well, whereas they're working from a caricature of us.
 
TrueSceptic said:
Just stumbled on this rather good spoof of GWS. Sample:-
Click to expand...

I particularly like

"In summary, each and every one of the above has been found to be the true culprit responsible for global warming which does not exist."
Click to expand...

Some more well-meant advice to the aspiring GWS : do not be side-tracked into building a coherent argument. Use anything that comes to hand, when it comes to hand.
 
CapelDodger said:
I'm trying to demonstrate that he's an idiot. Division of labour is sound practice.
Click to expand...
Both is good :D

It strikes me that we of the anti-GWS faction have the advantage of knowing our enemy pretty well, whereas they're working from a caricature of us.
Click to expand...
I'm glad you said "anti-GWS". I'm here not because I'm pro-AGW (as if anyone would want it to happen!); I'm here because I hate what these people (the ones "our" GWS follow so uncritically) are doing to public perception on science. The Creationist/ID movement is the obvious parallel.

Do these people actually understand the concept of caricature? As I said earlier, some look like plants (they cannot be for real). Is Diamond really you?
 
TrueSceptic said:
Do these people actually understand the concept of caricature? As I said earlier, some look like plants (they cannot be for real). Is Diamond really you?
Click to expand...

That's one for the Conspiracy thread, I think.

I'd have taken pride in mhaze as a creation. I defy anyone to invent a better one. Even the username is a triumph.
 
CapelDodger said:
I particularly like



Some more well-meant advice to the aspiring GWS : do not be side-tracked into building a coherent argument. Use anything that comes to hand, when it comes to hand.
Click to expand...
Yes, that one perfectly summarises part of my list, doesn't it?

We could also have:-

AGW is an evil lie perpetrated by enviro-nazi lefties and we should increase CO2 emissions because warming is a good thing.

and

History tells us that when there is a consensus the dissenters are always right and this time the real consensus agrees with the dissenters.
 
TrueSceptic said:
Hi everyone.

I'm new here and thought I'd start with this little list I've built up after being in a couple of climate change/global warming forums and reading messages at quite a few more.

I make no claim to this list being exhaustive and say nothing about the contents. I have seen all these claims, or variations of them, made quite often, and that applies to the behaviour described in bold type too.
---
You might wonder if you should be a Global Warming Sceptic and I thought it might be useful to show you how easy it is.

Just choose any combination of the following beliefs.
Click to expand...


I think your argument is fairly weak and condescending. Of course I also think that's your intention.

For any given opinion on any given subject, one can find legions of illogical, poorly reasoned, ignorant, and just plain stupid justifications. This is because lots and lots of people in the world are illogical, unreasoning, ignorant, or just plain stupid.

Any skeptic should, if they exist in a community of other human beings rather than some sort of plastic tube, have ample experience with interacting with people who profess skepticism yet are about as skeptical as a soggy glove.

Even amongst we people who accept the scientific data that the earth is indeed heating up, such remarkably incompetent human intelligence manifests itself on a daily basis. Consider the ranks of gibbering meat puppets that cite "global warming" as the cause of every single natural disaster or variance in weather patterns that happens to blow its way across their horizon. They'll quite happily ignore the scientists who promote climate change theories yet point out that such weather is a normal phenomenon and not a direct result of climate change.

Do these imbeciles negate the scientific body of work on climate change? No they do not. Yet by the same token the theoretical imbeciles you quote in the OP likewise do not negate the scientific body of work against climate change.

Assuming such a body of work exists.

;)
 
TrueSceptic said:
Yes, that one perfectly summarises part of my list, doesn't it?

We could also have:-

AGW is an evil lie perpetrated by enviro-nazi lefties and we should increase CO2 emissions because warming is a good thing.

and

History tells us that when there is a consensus the dissenters are always right and this time the real consensus agrees with the dissenters.
Click to expand...
Another great spoof at STR. Do you know STR? It's worth spending some time there but try not to eat or drink or you might spray the screen!

This one at Conservapedia is serious, or course.
 
a_unique_person said:
In reference to the OP.

Argue that solar cycles match the temperature record

while

Arguing that the temperature record is in fact wrong.
Click to expand...
You are right but my list is of claims made by GWS so these would be something like:-

The temperature record matches solar cycles much more closely than CO2 concentrations.

The temperature record cannot be trusted because it's doctored and based on poor quality data anyway.

I think I've already got the second of those. :D
 
gumboot said:
I think your argument is fairly weak and condescending. Of course I also think that's your intention.
Click to expand...
Not really an argument. Just an observation of GWS behaviour.

For any given opinion on any given subject, one can find legions of illogical, poorly reasoned, ignorant, and just plain stupid justifications. This is because lots and lots of people in the world are illogical, unreasoning, ignorant, or just plain stupid.
Click to expand...
Indeed.

Any skeptic should, if they exist in a community of other human beings rather than some sort of plastic tube, have ample experience with interacting with people who profess skepticism yet are about as skeptical as a soggy glove.

Even amongst we people who accept the scientific data that the earth is indeed heating up, such remarkably incompetent human intelligence manifests itself on a daily basis. Consider the ranks of gibbering meat puppets that cite "global warming" as the cause of every single natural disaster or variance in weather patterns that happens to blow its way across their horizon. They'll quite happily ignore the scientists who promote climate change theories yet point out that such weather is a normal phenomenon and not a direct result of climate change.
Click to expand...
There are certainly some of those.

Do these imbeciles negate the scientific body of work on climate change? No they do not. Yet by the same token the theoretical imbeciles you quote in the OP likewise do not negate the scientific body of work against climate change.
Click to expand...
These are not "theoretical imbeciles". I did not make up any of these claims. Many are in fact made by the very people responsible for the body of work against climate change (by which I assume you mean "not convinced that GW is happening, or if it is, it's not anthropogenic").

Assuming such a body of work exists.

;)
Click to expand...
Which one? :confused:
 
I'll add another

The glaciers and ice melting in Greenland and Antarctica is due to volcanic activity.
 
bobdroege7 said:
I'll add another

The glaciers and ice melting in Greenland and Antarctica is due to volcanic activity.
Click to expand...
Thanks. Do you have another to pair it with, on the lines of

The ice in Greenland and Antarctica is not melting and in fact is getting thicker*
?

*I haven't checked this so it might not be a fair quote.
 
Gumbot:
I think your argument is fairly weak and condescending. Of course I also think that's your intention.....
Click to expand...

As I understand this thread, it's an attempt to spoof GW skeptics. I'm waiting for the good ones - you know, the quality spoofs? I understand that Trueskeptic, and Capel and some others would really like to have such things. Really, I do. Understand, that is. So I thought I'd give you guys a "quality" measure. Sort of a simple yardstick to figure how good you are doing.

Is your take on "How to be a GW Skeptic" good enough to be included in a comedian's lines?

Oh. No? They always do GW believer comedy? No GW skeptic comedy?

Hmmm.....

Now why, oh why, would that be?

Inquiring minds would like to know.

It wouldn't be because the Warmologists are just basically pretty comical, would it?
 
Last edited:
mhaze said:
As I understand this thread, it's an attempt to spoof GW skeptics. I'm waiting for the good ones - you know, the quality spoofs? I understand that Trueskeptic, and Capel and some others would really like to have such things. Really, I do. Understand, that is. So I thought I'd give you guys a "quality" measure. Sort of a simple yardstick to figure how good you are doing.

Is your take on "How to be a GW Skeptic" good enough to be included in a comedian's lines?

Oh. No? They always do GW believer comedy? No GW skeptic comedy?

Hmmm.....

Now why, oh why, would that be?

Inquiring minds would like to know.

It wouldn't be because the Warmologists are just basically pretty comical, would it?
Click to expand...
So finally you start to get it? That's funny already. How slow is that, after how many days?

Now, did you follow these links?
Wikiality
STR
Conservapedia
Those might be too subtle (as this thread appears to be for some), so try this
radio comedy sketch
 
TrueSceptic said:
So finally you start to get it? That's funny already. How slow is that, after how many days?
Click to expand...

Notice how mhaze tries to latch onto the new contributor? I can picture mhaze hanging around a Greyhound station in any big US city ... Analogously, of course. I don't see him gathering many recruits these days.
 
Last edited:
gumboot said:
Do these imbeciles negate the scientific body of work on climate change? No they do not. Yet by the same token the theoretical imbeciles you quote in the OP likewise do not negate the scientific body of work against climate change.

Assuming such a body of work exists.

;)
Click to expand...

Wherein, of course, lies the rub :).
 
The quote that CapelDodger pointed out above is one of the funniest things I've seen on the internet today:

"In summary, each and every one of the above has been found to be the true culprit responsible for global warming which does not exist."

I'm reminded of the JFK conspiracies. I've heard a lot of them and sometimes they seem really, really persuasive. Then I remind myself that all of these really, really persuasive conspiracy theories can't be true, since they are mutually exclusive. There is only one objective truth to the matter.

I don't feel any great need to be pro or anti-AGW...but I recognize the GWS that you guys are parodying here. You get the impression that they will grasp at any straw possible, as long as it is an anti-AGW straw.

That being said, I think there are sincere anti-AGW folks as well. They see problems with the IPCC models and doubt their conclusion, but they could be convinced by more and better evidence.

Let's face it, even if the IPCC models are correct, there is a lot of more work to do before ALL the questions are answered. The IPCC report makes that clear (they stand behind their conclusion, be admit there are open questions). While there are still outstanding scientific questions, I think it is a little early to declare ALL anti-AGW folks as deliberately ignoring the truth.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom