An interesting blog you have here (I think to be a "magazine" will require a larger pool of authors, but baby steps). But when I read this, it became clear that you're probably going to fail in whatever your anti-woke goals are. Sorry.
> climate change denial, something which is disproportionately an anti-Woke liberal and libertarian preoccupation, and the preserve of the low IQ. Beyond the fact that, whilst the extreme environmentalists represented by Extinction Rebellion are insane narcissists, actual climate change deniers are kooks and morons that make themselves toxic to the high IQ
The people who blow up academic papers are by far the highest IQ people in the room. They have to be, because understanding how academics corrupt their data whilst making the results look scientific often requires a strong grip on statistics, the philosophy of science, experiment design, even computer programming. It also requires a very high reading speed because there's a lot more of them than there are of the skeptics, so they routinely just try to drown people in sheer volume of garbage papers. All these skills are aspects of high intelligence.
The key problem here (for you) is actually deeper - nowhere in your writing do you tackle or even mention the problem of pseudoscientific academia, despite its centrality to the problems that vex you. This is a critical weakness and means that the moment you venture beyond your "dissident right" safe spaces and try to argue with the woke, you will be faced down with floods of academic citations that appear to scientifically prove that their views are correct (but actually don't). At that point you will have three options:
1. Start dodging and rambling about common sense, what's "obviously" moral etc. This is a common conservative tendency and there is already a similar trend in your articles. It is a sign of defeat, and will be taken as such by any fence-sitters who may be listening.
2. To preserve your self-identity as a reasonable person, agree that the expert evidence must be true and by implication that you were badly wrong and should convert to wokeness. Down this road lies self destruction.
3. Study Defence Against The Dark Arts. Learn how to detect and call out pseudoscience.
Climatology takes a lot of heat from "the right", defined by the left as anyone who points out flaws in any academic output. That's because it has a lot of serious methodological errors and deceptions in it. There is a vast body of work explaining how these deceptions are put together, some of it written by dissident climatologists themselves, so the fact that you haven't been able/willing to engage with that literature and resort to Hanania-style petty insults instead strongly implies that you've accepted the premise that agreeing with academic "scientists" is what the smart set do. If you accept that then they've got you already and your (re)conversion is only a matter of time.
Note that I'm talking about academia in general and not climatology specifically. There are whole fields devoted to the defence of every aspect of wokeness. For example, misinformation studies is a much less sophisticated scam than climatology but no less impactful for it. If you want to learn how to tackle this stuff then people can teach you on softer targets like that, but you do need an open mind.
Okay, what about the well known links between climate change denial and the fossil fuel lobby? Basically every single group challenging the mainstream consensus on this issue has their fingerprints all over it. Climate change being a hoax is just too convenient for certain powerful actors, so I don't buy it.
Firstly, that's untrue leftist propaganda. It's actually the other way around: climatologists and climate activists receive huge amounts of funding from green billionaires and governments who bought into their claims, whilst skeptics are largely unfunded retirees. Usually retired scientists and engineers or independent bloggers of various kinds. Look at the recent Mann vs Steyn trial for an example. Mann (a climatologist) had all his legal costs paid by some rich patrons, Steyn did not. That was a big trial, where were all these rich fossil fuel companies that supposedly fund these guys? Nowhere to be see because they don't exist. Oil companies all reinvented themselves as energy companies decades ago and now build wind and solar farms as well.
Secondly, even if it was true, that would be an ad hominem fallacy. Do you see that? If a group of activists start attacking an industry, you would expect that industry to be the one that answers back and points out any errors in their arguments because it'd be those people who'd be most personally affected by it. Even if everyone arguing against climatologists were full time employees of oil companies, that wouldn't let you assume anything about the quality of their arguments! Indeed you'd expect their arguments to be quite high quality in that case because companies have brands to protect, whereas the lesson of the last 15 years or so is that universities simply do not care about protecting their brands at all ... hence why trust in them has gone into freefall across both left and right.
You say elsewhere that you used to be a left wing environmentalist. You may want to consider that people attacking climatology are not against a clean environment. Indeed they often make explicitly environmentalist arguments, for example that given the relative unimportance of CO2 there are probably more important environmental problems to worry about (eg. in the UK the state of the Thames).
Totally
An interesting blog you have here (I think to be a "magazine" will require a larger pool of authors, but baby steps). But when I read this, it became clear that you're probably going to fail in whatever your anti-woke goals are. Sorry.
> climate change denial, something which is disproportionately an anti-Woke liberal and libertarian preoccupation, and the preserve of the low IQ. Beyond the fact that, whilst the extreme environmentalists represented by Extinction Rebellion are insane narcissists, actual climate change deniers are kooks and morons that make themselves toxic to the high IQ
The people who blow up academic papers are by far the highest IQ people in the room. They have to be, because understanding how academics corrupt their data whilst making the results look scientific often requires a strong grip on statistics, the philosophy of science, experiment design, even computer programming. It also requires a very high reading speed because there's a lot more of them than there are of the skeptics, so they routinely just try to drown people in sheer volume of garbage papers. All these skills are aspects of high intelligence.
The key problem here (for you) is actually deeper - nowhere in your writing do you tackle or even mention the problem of pseudoscientific academia, despite its centrality to the problems that vex you. This is a critical weakness and means that the moment you venture beyond your "dissident right" safe spaces and try to argue with the woke, you will be faced down with floods of academic citations that appear to scientifically prove that their views are correct (but actually don't). At that point you will have three options:
1. Start dodging and rambling about common sense, what's "obviously" moral etc. This is a common conservative tendency and there is already a similar trend in your articles. It is a sign of defeat, and will be taken as such by any fence-sitters who may be listening.
2. To preserve your self-identity as a reasonable person, agree that the expert evidence must be true and by implication that you were badly wrong and should convert to wokeness. Down this road lies self destruction.
3. Study Defence Against The Dark Arts. Learn how to detect and call out pseudoscience.
Climatology takes a lot of heat from "the right", defined by the left as anyone who points out flaws in any academic output. That's because it has a lot of serious methodological errors and deceptions in it. There is a vast body of work explaining how these deceptions are put together, some of it written by dissident climatologists themselves, so the fact that you haven't been able/willing to engage with that literature and resort to Hanania-style petty insults instead strongly implies that you've accepted the premise that agreeing with academic "scientists" is what the smart set do. If you accept that then they've got you already and your (re)conversion is only a matter of time.
Note that I'm talking about academia in general and not climatology specifically. There are whole fields devoted to the defence of every aspect of wokeness. For example, misinformation studies is a much less sophisticated scam than climatology but no less impactful for it. If you want to learn how to tackle this stuff then people can teach you on softer targets like that, but you do need an open mind.
Okay, what about the well known links between climate change denial and the fossil fuel lobby? Basically every single group challenging the mainstream consensus on this issue has their fingerprints all over it. Climate change being a hoax is just too convenient for certain powerful actors, so I don't buy it.
Firstly, that's untrue leftist propaganda. It's actually the other way around: climatologists and climate activists receive huge amounts of funding from green billionaires and governments who bought into their claims, whilst skeptics are largely unfunded retirees. Usually retired scientists and engineers or independent bloggers of various kinds. Look at the recent Mann vs Steyn trial for an example. Mann (a climatologist) had all his legal costs paid by some rich patrons, Steyn did not. That was a big trial, where were all these rich fossil fuel companies that supposedly fund these guys? Nowhere to be see because they don't exist. Oil companies all reinvented themselves as energy companies decades ago and now build wind and solar farms as well.
Secondly, even if it was true, that would be an ad hominem fallacy. Do you see that? If a group of activists start attacking an industry, you would expect that industry to be the one that answers back and points out any errors in their arguments because it'd be those people who'd be most personally affected by it. Even if everyone arguing against climatologists were full time employees of oil companies, that wouldn't let you assume anything about the quality of their arguments! Indeed you'd expect their arguments to be quite high quality in that case because companies have brands to protect, whereas the lesson of the last 15 years or so is that universities simply do not care about protecting their brands at all ... hence why trust in them has gone into freefall across both left and right.
You say elsewhere that you used to be a left wing environmentalist. You may want to consider that people attacking climatology are not against a clean environment. Indeed they often make explicitly environmentalist arguments, for example that given the relative unimportance of CO2 there are probably more important environmental problems to worry about (eg. in the UK the state of the Thames).