It’s finally here! A day for Warmists to argue with all their bestest of friends and relatives! Well, really, they argue every day (right before they use a ton of electricity and travel in fossil fueled vehicles), but, now they can do it to a relatively captive audience which just wants to watch parades, football, and have pleasant conversation with people, some of whom they haven’t seen in some time. The NY Times’ John Schwartz is on it
It’s Cold Outside? Gather Around the Turkey and Argue About Climate Change.
It’s going to be a chilly Thanksgiving in the Northeast, with near-record cold temperatures in some cities. Which means, of course, that you can expect to get an earful from Uncle Walter over your turkey and stuffing about how global warming is just a hoax. He might bring up sunspots. Or something about Al Gore.
Many of us have an Uncle Walter, to borrow the character from the Ben Folds Five song, in some form. People can be cantankerous and counterfactual at any age.
But how to respond?
Well, first of all, it is undeniably going to be colder than usual for this time of year. On Twitter, Zeke Hausfather, a climate researcher at the University of California, Berkeley, delivered a forecast of frigid temperatures and a high probability of climate denial:
https://twitter.com/hausfath/status/1064379407039553537
See, when a small area is above normal, that is Definitive Proof Of Anthropogenic Climate Change doom. When a huge swath of America is below average (and into Canada, a good chunk of Europe, and parts of South America and half of Australia, the latter two which are in late spring), well, that means nothing. It’s surprising that it’s not being positioned as being caused by ‘climate change’.
We have discussed how to survive the Thanksgiving climate change argument before. The trick is not to get flustered in the moment that your debate partner brings up a theory or nugget of truthiness that you haven’t encountered before, such as a reference to the medieval warm period (irrelevant) or the allegation that the planet is actually cooling (nope).
If you must rebut, take a deep breath and excuse yourself for research. With the internet on our phones, a quick trip to the bathroom is like visiting the library, and sites like Skeptical Science and the denial response collection at Grist can be helpful.
Or you could refuse to engage. That’s what Mr. Hausfather does. He, too, has “a couple of Uncle Walters†on his wife’s side of the family, he said. “In general, there are just certain conversational topics we tend to avoid talking about at the Thanksgiving table to ensure civility.â€
The problem here, of course, is that most of these conversations are started by hardcore liberals. Because everything is political to them. Yet, they usually do not know what they’re talking about beyond a few talking points and slogans, hence the reason to excuse yourself for research.
Conservatives do not need this kind of advice. The ones who tend to start this stuff are usually liberals, and in cases when they don’t, they make it too hardcore. Even when they start it, they make it too hardcore, because someone dared respond. The Huffington Post continues to retweet this October 31 article
It doesn't have to be this way. https://t.co/3g1tES487y
— HuffPost (@HuffPost) November 22, 2018
The NY Times has three articles on getting into arguments showing in the opinion section on the front page (here, here, and here). Other outlets are running their own, because this has become a thing. And because it has Become A Thing, many others are recommending staying away from certain topics and/or how to de-escalate. Which is something those of us who aren’t Democrats already know how to do (unless we’re simply trolling for a good laugh. It can be a good way to get Democrats to stomp off and sulk so we can watch football).
On the plus side, in reality, despite all these pieces, most people aren’t going to get into an argument. It’s just the media with too much time on their hands.
And despite the articles and arguments the Earth continues to warm from CO2 we’re adding to the atmosphere.
Supplying Uncle Walter with a few facts will not change that.
Just say, “Uncle Walt, the vast majority of scientists and experts disagree with you, let’s please enjoy our family, our meal and all we have to be thankful for.”
Uncle Walt: “Consensus is not science!”
You: “Actually it is. Let’s eat!!”
Uncle Walt: “The 97% lie has been debunked!”
You: “I luv ya, Uncle Walt. Let’s eat!”
Uncle Walt: “It’s cold in Maine, explain that!!”
You: “I’m thankful you’re with us today, let’s eat.”
Uncle Walt: “It’s always warming AND cooling!”
You: “I know, let’s eat!”
Uncle Walt: “I’ll kill you, you commie whore!!!”
You: “Dad, Uncle Walt wants to go home.”
Note to self:
Stay away from drunk black people on Thanksgiving.
Consensus is NOT science!
When 99% of science believed that the continents did NOT move around on massive “plates” beneath the earths surface, did that make if true?
When 100% of science believed that heavier than air craft would NEVER fly under their own power, did that make if true?
Consensus is never science.
Science is never settled.
Closed minded people believe what they want and can’t be reasoned with.
Jethro and his Cult of AGW followers are desperate, jealous, envious and greedy.
Climate is science.
Climate Justice is Global Wealth redistribution, (Communists’ goal for the last 80 years) with a pretty green bow on it.
Believe it.
Consensus is science?
Wow, have to tell that to Copernicus and Galileo.
PS Dad: “Uncle Walt stays. You get out”.
As if on cue, “Uncle Don” blurts:
Brutal and Extended Cold Blast could shatter ALL RECORDS – Whatever happened to Global Warming? @realdonaldtRump
Nice Thanksgiving message to the nation, you bignorant POS!
Sorry to tell you this, Uncle Whiz, but both Copernicus and Galileo are long dead.
And science relies on consensus. Now, let’s eat. Happy Thanksgiving!
Jeff,
Science does not rely on consensus. You have not learned a thing in all the time you have been on this board. Now, religion does rely on consensus. So, by definition your obsession with a fake issue is religion. Now, once you apply your religion to scientific principals, then we can talk. Think of all the “science” in the past, illness caused by vapors, leeches cure pneumonia, cholesterol causes heart disease, the list goes on.
We’re always amazed by how little you understand scientific processes.
Religion relies on mythology and magic, not evidence, and certainly not scientific consensus. The scientific consensus is that gods, demons, miracles, angels, heaven and hell are unlikely to exist (but of course that can’t be proven).
Almost all religions rely on tenets lacking supporting evidence. Scientific consensus relies on accumulated supporting evidence that makes not accepting a particular theory unreasonable. But every scientific theory can be invalidated with evidence. Can a religion be invalidated with evidence? There is no evidence for the existence of a Christian “god” yet there is a religious consensus that one exists.
The scientific consensus was that disease was caused by miasmas or the night air.
The scientific consensus was bleeding people was a good idea.
The scientific consensus was that the Pison and Gihon rivers in the Bible didn’t exist.
The scientific consensus was the earth was flat. Much like your head.
Religion is based on the same faith you have in Communism, except that religion works.
Jeff,
That is certainly a bunch of words, that mean nothing. Fact is that you don’t have any evidence at all to advance your religion to scientific law.
Mr Bodine wrote:
How odd; here I thought that science relies on proven facts.
Uncle Dana,
Science relies on evidence and consensus. To say that a scientific consensus is false because scientists are persuaded by evidence is just stupid.
Once again, little idiot, consensus has been wrong a great deal of the time and science does not rely on it.
It relies on sustainable proof, gathered in accordance with the Scientific Method.
Again Galileo and Copernicus are still regarded and lauded as great scientists because they bucked the consensus.
I know, according to Lenin and Marx, if you don’t go with the consensus, you go to the wall.
Then again, you want to go with consensus? Up until right before WWII the consensus was antibiotics were too risky to use in general practice. Only after they were proven in WWII by the Allies (Reinhard Heydrich died because of that consensus), they began to be used in general practice. The life expectancy of the US jumped by 5 years in 1947 because antibiotics went into general use.
So, forget science and go with consensus. Spurn all antibiotics. We’ll see how long you live.
And the earth now revolves around the sun?
Oh, that’s the best one you’ve ever come up with.
When you start with the supposition that science is consensus, you’ve already lost and there’s no reason to go further.
The global warmists are the modern equivalent of Lysenkoists.
Actually, it has be debunked. Countless times. https://friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/97_Consensus_Myth.pdf
No, Uncle JL, it has not been.
Oh, but it has. One of oh, so many
Why yes, it sure has. https://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/12/19/97-articles-refuting-the-97-consensus-on-global-warming/
Back in the 1970s, I was a a teenager back then, the TV was filled with specials and documentaries about how, if the earth cooled just 2-3 degrees Centigrade, we’d be in a New Ice Age!
The cause back then, was of course, US!!! Us with our V-8 Buicks and Station Wagons and factories that were putting soot into the air and causing the earth to cool!!
If only, we could be like the USSR, or Europe, who were much more equal and fair and used far less energy per capital. Mostly the USSR. Was less energy used.
The solution, to prevent a runaway Ice Age, was to transfer our wealth and manufacturing to a Global Entity so we’d use less energy and put less soot into the atmosphere and, Save Us!!!!
But instead, the climate started to warm for the next 30 years or so until about 1998, when it inexplicably stopped warming and started cooling. So now it’s “Climate Change” — New! Improved!!!
And it’s still YOUR fault.
Don’t worry. The solution is this: Transfer our wealth and manufacturing to a Global Entity so we can avert Climate Change!!
Anyone who doesn’t agree is a poopy-head who won’t be cool with the “in” crowd.
dox,
You’re wrong on many of your suppositions.
In the 70s there was no scientific consensus that there was a coming ice age. A few scientific papers supported the hypothesis, but many more papers still predicted global warming.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was formed in 1988. If cooling started in 1998 (it didn’t) how did the experts know to call it Climate Change in 1988? Deniers never answer that question.
Actually, it was called global warming until Albert Gore, The Living Redwood, gave a speech on it on the day of a freezing cold blizzard.
And your prestigious body, another UN boondoggle, was originally The Advisory Group on Greenhouse Gases.
So I guess they were playing catch up, too.
PS Looks like Jeffery’s family finally threw him out after he couldn’t even behave at the kiddie table.
Actually we had a pleasant family gathering with folks from 9 mo old to 70+. No arguments at all, just pleasant conversation, deer and turkey hunting stories, children playing, lots of good food and good people. Moms, dads, kids, grandparents, great-grandparents, libs, cons, hunters, fishermen and women, teachers, chemist, IT workers, retail, mechanic, accountant, big city, small town, Christians, agnostics, and plenty of bonhomie in a small town in mid Missouri! Had a conversation with an impressive 13 yr old about school shootings and how schoolkids worry about such things.
We hope your day was as pleasant as ours.
IOW the little voices are all imaginary friends.