This forum is about wrong numbers in science, politics and the media. It respects good science and good English.
And the rationalists are starting to fall for it also.
James Randi, (www.randi.org), has joined the masses of Gorites. He is about as independent and rational as they come, but the media blitz that Gore et al have managed to assemble seems to have overwhelmed him.
I think it is possible that he may come to his senses, but there are enough other rational scientists out there that have his ear that follow this nonsense, that he has been taken in.
Prior to that Michael Shermer also started moaning about the ills of Man and his overproduction of CO2.
These are two people who were central to me not falling into the irrational trap.
The only holdouts left for me are Milloy and Brignell.
If either of them start changing their viewpoint, I am going to start keeping my eyes open for Human Sized Pods.
I think 'traditional sceptics' often have a surprising blind spot whenn it comes to the whole idea of 'junkscience'. By 'traditional sceptic' I mean people who concentrate on the traditional debunking areas like religion, belief in the paranormal or supernatural, and associated pseudosciences like astrology, palmistry, alternative medicine, etc. By junkscience I mean science that is corrupted by political, ideological or financial motives.
The most recent example of this is traditional sceptic James Randi being convinced of global warming and specifically by Al Gore's film. Another example a few months ago is traditional sceptic Richard Dawkins publishing an anti-religious book "The God Delusion", which as some critics have pointed out, completely fails to notice the rise of environmentalism as a potentially more harmful new type of religion.
I suspect the reason for the inability to notice junkscience is that some people have absolutely zero interest in politics, and so cannot spot a political agenda.
I also think that the traditional sceptics may be fighting a lost cause. There is a theory that the human brain is naturally prone to superstition as a sort of evolutionary survival mechanism and it would be almost impossible to stamp out these kind of belief systems. A news article on this theory:
Nope not the liberals. What we are seeing is the Second Coming of Marxism, cloaking itself as "progressive" and "liberal" while indulging itself in the same conceits as last time: the intrinsic evils of capitalism, the purity of state bureaucracies, the glories of central planning for the good of the people, the determinacy of the future.
I am a classical liberal. However, liberalism without skepticism is an invitation to be steamrollered by extremist zealots from both ends of the political spectrum.
It's interesting that most of the climate skeptics that I have met self-identify as liberals and not conservatives as people might expect.
The word "liberal" has been highly polluted. I discovered recently, having been told that my views are slightly right of Attilla, that I was in fact a "classic liberal".
I was momentarily stunned.
How could this be?
Yet another checkmark on my list of "things that are perverted by the elite".