Whew! Another Moonbat Article Describing How To Talk To A Denier

Personally, I recommend starting out with a discussion of how you’ve changed your own life, rather than by using a word comparing people who do not believe that anthropogenic forces are mostly/solely causing hotcoldwetdry

How to Talk to a Climate Change Denier

The contest is joined. On one side there is the near-unanimous conclusion of thousands of active climate scientists throughout the world: the global climate is changing and human technology is the primary cause. From the other side we are told that “climate change” is at worst a “hoax” or at least a normal and natural phenomenon not significantly affected by human activity. This position is endorsed by right-wing media, almost all congressional Republicans, and a few bought-off “scientists” (“biostitutes”) lavishly funded by fossil fuel industries.

Wow. That should help with the discussion. Personal insults, denigrating those scientists as “scientists” and prostitutes, proclaiming they are bought and for by Big Oil (still no proof), oh, and using human technology that supposedly causes hotcoldwetdry to complain.

So how do you deal with a “denier” willing to engage you in a debate?

If the “denier” tells you that “God would not allow the climate to change” or that “Jesus will fix all that when he comes back in the next few years,” and then quotes the Bible as “evidence,” save your breath and his time. His is a hopeless case.

If the Warmists tells you that they haven’t made significant changes in their own lives, and cites “consensus”, you’re wasting your time, because they are more religious than a devout Catholic.

But if your adversaries are citing what they believe is “scientific fact” or otherwise exhibit some indication of a capacity to yield in the face of scientific evidence, they just might listen to reason and consider evidence — but don’t count on it.

Interesting, because Warmists refuse to listen to any evidence that discounts their cult, er, science.

Instead of citing an endless list of scientific studies, I propose a different approach. Pose just three questions.

  • “Putting aside for the moment the issue of the reality of climate change, will you acknowledge that a recent survey of 10,000 active climate scientists found that 98% affirmed the existence of anthropogenic climate change?”
  • “Will you acknowledge the existence of a recently released report of the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), an agency with 195 member countries, which concludes with 95% confidence that the climate is changing, due to human activity.”
  • “How, then, do you deal with these acknowledged facts?”

Interesting. There are no scientific facts, just polls and consensus. The 98% thing has been thoroughly debunked, as has the IPCC 95%. And there are no facts that follow, just allegation, implication by causation, and insults.

The findings of the IPCC and of those thousands of climate scientists portend unimaginable horrors., unless the global community of nations and their scientists act immediately and decisively.

“Eventual” vindication of their warnings will be too late.

Yet, their models have fallen apart. Personally, I have always enjoyed a good scary story, TV show, and movie. “Climate change” has more in common with werewolves and vampires than anything in reality.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at 1800flowers.com. Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

RSS feed

You can login to comment with:

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

14 Comments

Comment by JGlanton
2014-03-11 19:10:20

What a bunch of arrogant a-holes. They go right off assuming that ‘deniers’ are idiotic religious zealots, yet there has not been one skeptic who has published a religious argument about AGW. The primary complaints that skeptics make have to do with a lack of scientific rigor and ethics by an AGW science community, and that the AGW community predominately uses political and social reasoning to make their case. The skeptics are about as far from making faith-based arguments as you can get.

 
Comment by gitarcarver
2014-03-11 20:36:21

They go right off assuming that ‘deniers’ are idiotic religious zealots, yet there has not been one skeptic who has published a religious argument about AGW.

I used to hear arguments from Christians to the unsaved that went something like “what does it harm to believe in God?” Or “if you accept Christ into your heart and it turns out you were wrong, what is the worst thing that has happened?”

It was ridiculous argument then and so it is not a surprise that the AGW’ers are using the same argument. You hear “if we stop doing (insert some alleged contributory factor here) and it turns out that there was no AGW, you’ve still helped the planet!”

It is the same ridiculous argument that some Christians used and were mocked by atheists for trying.

 
Comment by Jl
2014-03-11 20:52:05

“We have more guys on our side and we’ll call you names.” Great argument. Very scientific.

 
Comment by Jeffery
2014-03-11 22:27:48

The author of the cited article is wrong. Study after study shows that deniers respond to evidence by digging in their heels even more deeply.

The evidence supporting the theory that human-generated CO2 is causing the Earth to warm is overwhelming. Someone who is absolutely, positively certain that the theory is false will never be persuaded.

From the article (which I recommend the resident deniers read):

“Could the consensus be right — is anthropogenic climate change a reality?

This, by process of elimination, must be the only plausible explanation of the world-wide scientific consensus.

And yet, as scientists, they are open to the possibility that they are wrong. Scientific integrity demands this openness: its called “the falsifiability rule.” All that is required is scientifically compelling contrary evidence and inference.

So far: nothing.

Furthermore, as compassionate human beings with children and grandchildren, and with concern for the future of humanity, these same scientists must hope that they are wrong. Sadly, their evidence offers them no solace.”

 
Comment by gitarcarver
2014-03-11 23:00:49

Study after study shows that deniers respond to evidence by digging in their heels even more deeply.

That’s funny Even as you have been shown to be wrong here in this forum, you not only dig in your heals, you resort to childish name calling.

What you are asking people to do is to deny science and to go with an unproven theory that has holes in it a mile wide.

Could the consensus be right — is anthropogenic climate change a reality?

This is a great example of a lie that you agree with and yet keep repeating.

There is no consensus on the caue of warming, only that it occurs. Time and time again this has been pointed out to you and you ignore it.

Please, take your holier than thou “only my side believes in science and you don’t listen” and put it aside and learn to deal with reality.

If you can.

 
Comment by Jl
2014-03-12 01:40:10

“The theory that human endured CO2 is causing warming is overwhelming.” Really? It doesn’t seem to be too overwhelming to Mother Nature, who’s taking a breather. But yes, when the evidence is overwhelming one still needs to connect every incident that has nothing to do with it to GW- rapes, crime, surf waves, drought, no drought, hot, cold, ect, ect. That’s exactly what one does when the evidence is overwhelming, right, J?

 
Comment by david7134
2014-03-12 09:39:04

Note that the rhetoric has changed. It is now either 95% or 97% of “published” “climate” scientist that support the theory. Now, the issue most have is that peer review is broken and dissenters can not get an article out. So that limits the field. Then, almost all climate scientist are searching for government grants, so that means they will bark like a trained dog. Then, as exhibited in the questions I have been asking Jeff, they changed the very nature of chemistry, physics and other natural laws to fit their “science”. This has scam written all over it. And, this is one scientist that doesn’t buy the crap.

 
Comment by david7134
2014-03-12 09:48:23

One other thing, why would the fossil fuel companies give a care what people are doing with the climate change agenda? If takes fossil fuel to run a battery car (which doesn’t work). Fossil fuels are not going away, ever. As they restrict fossil fuels the cost will go up, thus more profits for the company. All in all, I would see a win for fossil fuels with the stupid legislation proposed. But, these companies do not buy scientist, they buy Senators.

 
Comment by Dana
2014-03-12 11:00:22

After I put the cursor over the linked headline, I saw that it was from OpEdNews, a far, far! left kook site run by Rob Kall. OpEdNews is eaten up with 9/11 Truthers, Bush-stole-Ohio-in-2004 whack jobs and complete anti-capitalist anarchists and socialists. (They may have finally given up on Trig Palin trutherism by now.) They make even Jeffrey seem sane and calm.

 
Comment by Dana
2014-03-12 11:09:11

David wrote:

As they restrict fossil fuels the cost will go up, thus more profits for the company.

Oh, the automobile companies love the warmists, because the people who will make money off of climate change legislation will be the automobile companies! As regulations tighten emission standards, more complicated vehicles will be required, and it will be the automobile companies which will produce and sell them. Prices will have to climb, to pay for the additional engineering, and the car companies will make more on the margins for that.

You can see it now: who is making the money on the Chevy Dolt? It’s General Motors, which is producing an overpriced car, with the government subsidizing the price.

The other people who will make money on “climate change?” It’s the energy companies! Who has more scientists and engineers already engaged in research than Exxon-Mobil and Shell and Texaco? They’ll wind up adding to the cost of fuel, because all of that research has to be paid for, and their already great profits will get even better.

 
Comment by gitarcarver
2014-03-12 12:19:55

As they restrict fossil fuels the cost will go up, thus more profits for the company.

I don’t think so. There is an economy of scale to things and while a gallon of gas may yield a company very little profit percentage wise, raising the cost of the gallon of gas won’t yield more overall profit because people are buying less of the product.

An analogy would be the fact that as fuel economy in cars rise, the associated gas tax revenues have dropped.

Prices will have to climb, to pay for the additional engineering, and the car companies will make more on the margins for that.

Once again, I am not so sure about that.

Getting better gas mileage is always a battle against physics. It is the ability to get a certain weight vehicle up to a certain speed in a certain amount of time.

With the advent of new, higher fuel regulations comes the added financial strain on the car manufacturers of research and development as well as retooling entire car lines. Make no mistake, there is a difference between retooling a line for cosmetic reasons and retooling a line to go from a pure combustion engine car to a hybrid or electric car. The associated costs are huge.

While I understand how everyone wants to dump on the car companies, I am just not sure that these same car companies who fought the new economy regulations are fighting them because they think they will make more money in the long run. If more regulations mean higher profit, then why would the car manufacturers fight the regulations?

 
Comment by William Teach
2014-03-12 13:26:29

As they restrict fossil fuels the cost will go up, thus more profits for the company.

Um, no. Gross profits go up, but net profits will, at best, only go up a bit. Oil companies tend to make 6-10 cents in profit per dollar. That’s actually a very low rate of return. Go buy a shirt, you’re probably paying anywhere from 50% to multiple times what the cost is.

Furthermore, the operating costs for the oil companies go up. And people will use less, which means that the net profits one might see with lower priced gas can decrease. Overall, the gas companies would prefer that prices not skyrocket: their analysts know that there is a certain price range where they have the best net profit.

 
Comment by Jeffery
2014-03-12 14:10:56

jl,

One lie at a time.

No breather. The data show that the Earth continues to warm, Lord Monckton not withstanding.

The 4 global surface data sets show clear warming, as does the UAH (Christy and Spencer) satellite data. The RSS satellite data set shows more modest warming (and is the one the Lord was pimping).

What others say about rape, crime, drought etc has no impact on the validity of the temperature data, which overwhelmingly shows warming.

 
Comment by Butt_Melting_Gumballs Subscribed to comments via email
2014-03-12 17:50:42

On one side there is the near-unanimous conclusion of thousands of active climate scientists throughout the world

There are actually only a couple hundred true “climate scientists” in the world. The numbers they are playing with are scientists who like to play around with fields outside of their expertise.

the global climate is changing and human technology is the primary cause.

No one denies that the climate is changing and trying to stop it is like trying to stop the sun from shining. And, really, it is our technology that is making the world’s climate change? Well, we do have the evil ice makers and refrigerators and air conditioners I guess.

From the other side we are told that “climate change” is …not significantly affected by human activity.

Wait, which is it? technology or activity? And, so, like jogging every morning is affecting a changing climate? OK, I never wanted to job anyway. What about getting up off the sofa? ok, I’ll stop that activity too. hell, they are already claiming that the action of working is bad and not important. i guess it’s harmful to the climate too.

This position is endorsed by right-wing media, almost all congressional Republicans,

Probably because people on the right have learned to read and think for themselves. Easy to do when you don’t wear a leash.

Teach: you’re wasting your time, because they are more religious than a devout Catholic.

BWWWAAAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAAA. So very true. So very true.

they just might listen to reason and consider evidence — but don’t count on it.

Wait, was this a piece on how to talk to and convince the opposition to listen or was this just a blatant rambling hit piece?

I propose a different approach. Pose just three questions. [#3]“How, then, do you deal with these acknowledged facts?”

Wait, how is that a third question? Guess the author can’t think of more than 2 non-scientific, unfounded, disproven rants.

And, when did the long-ago dead poll get to 98%? I thought the nail-in-the-coffin percentage was 97%? Or was that increased because it was found out to be 0.05%?

 

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

Bad Behavior has blocked 7847 access attempts in the last 7 days.

Optimization WordPress Plugins & Solutions by W3 EDGE