GWDs

I have encountered a few "global warming deniers" (GWDs), but not one of them is a scientist of any kind. In fact, most of them, take IBIL for instance, are scientifically illiterate. They don't have the first idea about how science works. Scientific predictions about global warming could be wrong, and scientists will be the first to admit it if data comes in that refutes the evidence that has been accumulated so far.

IBIL and some others reckon that a few coolish days in August are solid refutation of the whole global warming phenomenon. Now, that's scientific reasoning for you! Note to dumbasses: the average global temperature change is not all that impressive, but the changes at the poles are huge. It cannot be denied that the ice caps are shrinking.

I asked IBIL why he took the GWD position, and he claimed that it was because the fact of global warming would be used to justify all kinds of restrictions on him and his choices (he pretends to be a libertarian). Would you, I asked him, change your ultimate position on the restrictions if global warming was a fact? He would not. Why then put on the tin foil hat of GWD and risk being discredited as a crackpot when you could make perfectly cromulent arguments from libertarian principles why these restrictions should not be placed on you? Arguing the facts just exposes you to refutation by reality. Arguing the facts is a tacit acceptance of the legitimacy of the state's imposing restrictions if the facts bear it out.

The state laready reckons that it owns you and that there is no aspect of your lives that is not of interest to it. Global warming, universal health insurance, or what have you are not going to be necessary for the state to justify regulating the crap out of you. They don't need justification. They don't care about justification.