Lets agree to disagree. When I talk about "globalism" I refer to the set of ideas that by and large the Western elites have bought into, and that are layed out in books such as "The Pentagons New Map" by Barnett or "George Soros on Globalization". Talking about the latter, look up all the activities that his "Open Society Foundation" is involved in, and you see everything that the Western elites love, and the people of their nations have to suffer from. You can also call it the populist vs elitist debate. Trump, like the European populist parties, takes the populist side, and neocons, neolibs, the coporate media like CNN et all take the elitist (globalist) side.
I can see on which side you are, and you can see on which side I am. — Nobeernolife

Exactly, you have demonstrated my point clearly. Those, such as yourself, who hold an anti-globalization ideology have lumped together a "set of ideas", as conducive to globalization, despite the fact that these ideas are vastly variant, and cannot be reconciled as one ideology, "globalization". Therefore there is really no such ideology as "globalization", because globalization is the result of many ideologies.

However, these are the rational ideologies of the world, promoting cooperation and social relations, and peaceful co-existence of human beings, which lead to globalization, despite the fact that the differences in the ideologies sometimes clash in conflict. The anti-globalization ideology is opposed to these rational ideologies of co-existence and global social relations, and is therefore irrational.

Elitism is irrelevant, and a notion you've just decided to toss in. Why?

Lets agree to disagree. — Nobeernolife

I see you're not prepared to defend your principles. That is because what you hoist up is a deception. You recognize that anti-globalism is a deception, an irrational ideology which you propagate for no other reason than disrupt the status quo. Your post reveals that your true concern is "elitism", and you raise the anti-globalist deception as a means of attacking it. You are dissatisfied with the elitism within the status quo. Anti-globalism is not the solution to the problems of elitism.

That tells me all I need to know about you, and I suspect @Nobeernolife is the same as you.

What does it tell you?

Patrick Moore is not a CLIMATE scientist. This study provides the basis for my claim about the consensus of climate scientiests. It also discusses s a prior study (Tol) that concluded there was not much consensus

Well, as you say yourself, the Tol study came to a different conclusion. Anyway, how productive is it boil down tens of thousands of different papers into a simplistics yes/no vote? — Nobeernolife

You're ignoring the fact that the Tol study does not constitute the consensus of those with the relevant expertise, and it did some cherry picking of individuals with contrary opinions.

How productive is it? As productive as any argument from authority. Anyone is free to hold a contrary opinion, but they shouldn't expect it to be respected if it's based on non-authority opinions, cherry picking of authorities whose conclusions appeal to them, or on naive falsification (e.g. the models make these errors, so the general view must be false).

Agree. As Scott Adams (check him out if you don´t know him) says: Two movies on the same screen. — Nobeernolife

Baudrillard's notion of simulacra (in Simulacra and Simulation) is a bit clearer.

We've passed far beyond the classical notion of disparate interpretations of reality. The two camps inhabit two exclusive divergent realities.

Neither side gives the other any benefit of the doubt. — NOS4A2

When your hero and mascot is a pathological liar - you don't deserve the benefit of the doubt.

It would be foolish to give Trumpsters the benefit of the doubt. They're in cahoots with a potentate who steals from children's charities.

Fox News says so.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/potus-to-pay-2-million-admits-misuse-of-trump-foundation-funds-in-settlement-with-ny-ag

One of the people who testified against Trump, Fiona Hill, a Soros stooge, writes for an online magazine called “The Globalist”. You can’t make this stuff up. — NOS4A2

Geez - Genetic fallacy upon genetic fallacy. A "Soros stooge" (whatever that refers to) is wrong because she's a "Soros stooge", not because something she says is irrational or false. And since she writes for a magazine called "The Globalist", she obviously has some false beliefs about the world, and therefore she's wrong.

Thanks for providing another example of how to think irrationally.

That is par for the course in current American political discourse. Unfortunately, it's not just Trump supporters.

Yes, but I'd like to think that people participating on a philosophy forum would value critical thinking, so I think its appropriate to call out clear irrationality.

Am I being irrational to do so?

Not at all.

Reading opinion articles and repeating them is not "research". I am not qualified to do climate research myself, and neither are you. — Nobeernolife

So, since you're unqualified to do the research, and unwilling to listen to the experts, what do you do?

That is an entirely different thing. Costly consequences is an economic term. Certainly the activists policies promoted by the climate activists are extremely costly. Bjoern Lomborg addresses this aspect, if you have not heard of him, look him up. — Nobeernolife

What exactly is your position? That Climate change isn't a problem or that it is a problem, but any solution would be worse?

When I talk about "globalism" I refer to the set of ideas that by and large the Western elites have bought into, and that are layed out in books such as "The Pentagons New Map" by Barnett or "George Soros on Globalization". Talking about the latter, look up all the activities that his "Open Society Foundation" is involved in, and you see everything that the Western elites love, and the people of their nations have to suffer from. — Nobeernolife

I always find it bad manners to expect people to read entire books or do time consuming research just to be able to engage with you in an internet forum. If you have a position, you should be able to summarize that position for us. Give us the basics on "Globalism" an "Elitism".

"Elitism" on Fox News is equivalent to anyone on the left, particularly those people who are financially well off, live on the coasts, enjoy Starbucks or some other kind of 'higher quality' coffee, and think that their ethics are better than the Fox viewers'(those put on display at Fox).

Will he evovle into a dictator if he gets another term? Is this forever. — Qwex

TDS is an amazing condition.

So, since you're unqualified to do the research, and unwilling to listen to the experts, what do you do? — Echarmion

I do listen to experts. The experts have varying and nuanced opinions, as is to be expected. What I do NOT do is take opinion articles from the propaganda media and then go lecture other people about "science". Surprising concept?

I do listen to experts. The experts have varying and nuanced opinions, as is to be expected. What I do NOT do is take opinion articles from the propaganda media and then go lecture other people about "science". — Nobeernolife

So, the IPCC reports, are those expert reports or "propaganda media"?

Geez - Genetic fallacy upon genetic fallacy. A "Soros stooge" (whatever that refers to) is wrong because she's a "Soros stooge", not because something she says is irrational or false. And since she writes for a magazine called "The Globalist", she obviously has some false beliefs about the world, and therefore she's wrong.

Thanks for providing another example of how to think irrationally.

Oh dear. No genetic fallacy. Just pointing out she’s a globalist.

Yes, but I'd like to think that people participating on a philosophy forum would value critical thinking, so I think its appropriate to call out clear irrationality.

Am I being irrational to do so?

But when you do it wrong, you’re being irrational, so naturally you go seek validation.

TDS is an amazing condition. — Nobeernolife

Oh dear. No genetic fallacy. Just pointing out she’s a globalist. — NOS4A2

Fair enough, although labeling someone a "globalist", or any other kind of "-ist" suggests possibly making some unwarranted assumptions. Nevertheless, I gather you're just making some observations, and stating an ad hominem (stooge). Well and good, so I presume you'd still value her opinion, given her education and experience - right?

Globalism, globalization, what's the difference?
Globalization:

Globalization or globalisation is the process of interaction and integration among people, companies, and governments worldwide. As a complex and multifaceted phenomenon, globalization is considered by some as a form of capitalist expansion which entails the integration of local and national economies into a global, unregulated market economy.[1] Globalization has grown due to advances in transportation and communication technology. With the increased global interactions comes the growth of international trade, ideas, and culture. Globalization is primarily an economic process of interaction and integration that's associated with social and cultural aspects. However, conflicts and diplomacy are also large parts of the history of globalization, and modern globalization. — Wikipedia on globalization

Globalism:

Not to be confused with Globalization.
Globalism refers to various systems with scope beyond the merely international. It is used by political scientists, such as Joseph Nye, to describe "attempts to understand all the interconnections of the modern world — and to highlight patterns that underlie (and explain) them."[1] While primarily associated with world-systems, it can be used to describe other global trends. The term is also used by detractors of globalization such as populist movements. — Wikipedia on Globalism

So, the IPCC reports, are those expert reports or "propaganda media"? — Echarmion

IPCC is a political orginization with a political purpose. You might want to read one of the exposees about it.

— Wikipedia on Globalism — Metaphysician Undercover

Wikipedia has a well-known bias, shown here.You might want to look Wikipedia to form an opinion.

Thats funny. But as Scott Adams points out, there is a large part of the population that is simply unable to understand a joke.

there is a large part of the population that is simply unable to understand a joke. — Nobeernolife

I suppose you think it a great idea for the President of the United States to make a joke about shredding the Constitution and occupying the White House indefinitely.

You, like Trump, have no respect for power and no sense of responsibility. Let's call it a pathological puerility.

NOS4A2 has a similar outlook. It runs in the family.

You might want to read one of the exposees about it. — Nobeernolife

Provide a link to an expose on the IPCC, please. From a source you trust.

IPCC is a political orginization with a political purpose. You might want to read one of the exposees about it. — Nobeernolife

You're not answering the question. Does the IPCC employ experts that write their reports?

IPCC is a political orginization with a political purpose. You might want to read one of the exposees about it.

Let's get back to reality,
Where do you live? I don't mean the country be more specific. I'm interested in your local climactic conditions.

I bet you will find just about everyone posting here, from around the globe, are beginning to experience the changes in the climate in their location. Some far worse than others. You don't need to have blind faith is some some scientists to see what's happening, you just need to look out the window.

Provide a link to an expose on the IPCC please. — ZzzoneiroCosm

Read the book by Donna Laframboise who actually worked there and saw how these "reports" are compiled. It is an eye-opener.
The IPCC is funded by politicians with the goal to promote a political agenda. If it does not produce the desired results, it loses its reason to exist. Basing climate policy on the IPCC reports is like basing a critical examination of communism on the writings of Lenin.

I bet you will find just about everyone posting here, from around the globe, are beginning to experience the changes in the climate in their location — Punshhh

What is there to bet about? The climate has always been changing and will always change. In fact, I have not yet met any real-life person who claims that the climate does not or should not change. These fictional characters seem to exist only in the imagination of the climate policy peddlers. Talk about a strawman.

are you going to answer my question? So we can discuss it?

Politely of course.

Read the book by Donna Laframboise who actually worked there and saw how these "reports" are compiled. It is an eye-opener. — Nobeernolife

Okay. One woman's book. What else?

The IPCC is funded by politicians with the goal to promote a political agenda. — Nobeernolife

Can you provide a source or two to support this assertion?