how is this statement different than e.g. "the democratic party is the party of socialists and communists"?
they're both bold assertions on a large group of people that are unlikely to be true for the majority...
to be honest it just sounds smug
Anyway, I'm sure that the greening of the Arctic and of many places elsewhere as evidenced by satellite imagery is a disastrous phenomenon we should discourage.
“An ancient forest has thawed from under a melting glacier in Alaska and is now exposed to the world for the first time in more than 1,000 years.". An observation probably invented by some imaginative climate denier?
As Judith Curry has said: "Efforts to link dangerous impacts of extreme weather events to human-caused warming are misleading and unsupported by evidence. Climate change is a ‘wicked problem’ and ill-suited to a ‘command and control’ solution. It has been estimated that the U.S. national commitments to the UN to reduce emissions by 28% will prevent three hundredths of a degree centigrade in warming by 2100...".
Yes. Google methane and permafrost melting.
Because socialists and communists does not actually carry the negative connotations you ascribe it, while creationists and climate deniers does.
One is a valid policy stance, while the other is just flat out rejection of reality.
Tell that to North Korea, Venezuela, China, the Soviet Union, etc etc
Your statement is purely subjective which was my original point that classifying an entire group based on what a fraction of that group says isn't really valid. In the US we only have two major political parties so chances are people will either fall into one or the other based on various factors and influences including but not limited to education.