Here We Go: How To Argue With Your Climate Denier Relatives At Christmas

Is this the first one of the year? I guess it doesn’t matter, because they’ll be trotting out lots of these missives over the next week

How to argue with your climate denier relatives this Christmas

It’s a time for festive cheer, good kai, and family.

But it’s also the time when relatives with questionable stances on certain matters come out of the woodwork.

And with 2019 looking to be one of the hottest years on record, don’t be surprised if the small matter of climate change comes up.

So, to help you deal with any difficult discussions, The Detail spoke to University of Auckland’s Nick Matzke. These days he’s a senior lecturer in biological studies – with a lot of experience in pseudoscience and denialism.

“I actually worked in the States for a non-profit called the National Centre for Science Education. That was the only non-profit in the US that was devoted to teaching strong science in the public schools of the US, especially evolution and climate change science.”

Given his experience, what does Matzke believe drives denialism?

“The main thing is inconvenient facts. Facts that, if true and if you accept them, require some sort of action from you or change in your complacence.

Can you guess what the article forgot to mention? Inconvenient facts. Of course, I always offer inconvenient facts back whenever I’m in a discussion brought on by other people regarding the complacency, otherwise known as climahypocrisy, of the climate cultist yapping at me.

Listen to the podcast to hear Matzke dispel some of the more popular climate myths – the ‘natural cycle’, ‘lack of consensus’, ‘unreliable records’ among them.

But if you’re short on time, Matzke has another way to get the message across to climate change deniers who pop up at Christmas.

“My recommendation is to buy those folks a book for Christmas. Buy a book in climate change science and give it to them.”

“Often if you get them reading, six months or a year later they’ll convert to the other side.”

Nothing says “Merry Christmas, I love you” like a cult based book, eh? It is interesting that Warmists never really have any arguments beyond very basic ones, eh?

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

31 Responses to “Here We Go: How To Argue With Your Climate Denier Relatives At Christmas”

  1. Professor Hale says:

    I have a shelf full I books I have never opened. All given to me by people who were really interest in that topic and didn’t care that I wasn’t. The perfect gift.

  2. Elwood P. Dowd says:

    TEACH typed: It is interesting that Warmists never really have any arguments beyond very basic ones, eh?

    Is “The Earth is warming rapidly as a result of CO2 emissions from burning fossil fuels” too “basic”?

    Denialists have shown little stomach for discussing the science of climate change, preferring the uber-“basic”, it’s a hoax or the evidence is faked or it’s a commie plot to make American conservatives drive electric cars.

    • Bill589 says:

      Elwood lies yet again. The Earth is not warming rapidly.

      • Not true. In my area, the Earth warms rapidly every day, then cools rapidly each night.

        • Elwood P. Dowd says:

          How profound! Yet, the mean global surface temperature continues to increase.

          50 year trends:

          HADCRUT Trend: 0.183 ±0.027 °C/decade
          GISTEMP Trend: 0.188 ±0.028 °C/decade
          Berkeley Trend: 0.185 ±0.025 °C/decade

          40 year satellite:

          RSS Trend: 0.183 ±0.027 °C/decade
          UAH Trend: 0.132 ±0.055 °C/decade

      • Elwood P. Dowd says:

        Bill,

        The Earth is warming rapidly compared to the rate of warming as the Earth came out of the last glacial period (about 12,000 years ago). In fact the current rate is 10 times faster than that transition.

        You may quibble with use of “rapidly” but that doesn’t make it a lie.

        • formwiz says:

          When you show us records from 12,000 years ago, you might just be listened to.

          • Elwood P. Dowd says:

            Let’s get this straight, you don’t trust the data from 12,000 years ago, but you DO trust the data from the so-called Roman, Minoan and Medieval warm periods? Got it.

            But saying you will listen is just another lie.

            What evidence will “prove” to you that the Earth is warming?

        • Jl says:

          No J, it’s not warming any more rapidly than earlier. You keep pushing this BS and you keep getting shot down.
          https://twitter.com/sylviad32911201/status/1145897790590947328?s=21

          • Elwood P. Dowd says:

            How do you know?

            According to other commenters here there is no way to know anything about temperature changes before the 17th Century (when the thermometer was developed).

            Do you accept the proxy measures that formwiz rejects?

            Concerning the “rapid” changes, were these shown to be global?

        • Nighthawk says:

          You can’t say with any certainty that the current change is 10 times faster than it was 12,000 years ago. The resolution of the data isn’t like data being taken from thermometers every hour, every day or hell, even once a day.

          Who’s to say that 12,000 years ago there wasn’t rapid warming for a few decades followed by no warming for a couple decades and this cycle repeating itself for a few centuries.

          And if you want to go back 12,000 years, why don’t you mention that it was much warmer then than it is now? And if you go back even further, the trend has been overall cooling and NOT warming.

          There’s a reason why they are trying to erase those warm periods from the data. It blows the whole ‘man made warming’ crap out the window.

    • formwiz says:

      Well, since it’s all a lie, yeah.

      Denialists have shown little stomach for discussing the science of climate change, preferring the uber-“basic”

      We’ve raised facts by the metric ton (or tonne, if you prefer).

      Since you’re paid to lie, rather than judge data objectively, your opinion is just that and no more since you reject facts and insist on raising faked data.

  3. Nighthawk says:

    “the ‘natural cycle’”

    Considering that natural variation can explain a majority of the observed warming, this is a sound argument to make.

    “‘lack of consensus’”

    The ‘consensus’ crap has been debunked numerous times but it is still pointed to as some sort of proof.

    ‘unreliable records’

    YAY!! Now the records are reliable. That means that the Roman Warm Period, the Minoan Warm Period, and the others actually did happen AND were much warmer than it is now. Good to know.

  4. Kye says:

    First of all you will never get people to even listen let alone change their minds by calling them “deniers” or any of your quiver of slurs and sneers. By this time we would figure you radicals would have known this but we suppose it’s based on too much human compassion for you guys.

    Second, Your snide “preferring the uber-‘basic'” that it’s a hoax or the evidence is faked or a commie plot would hold more water if it weren’t all those things. Sadly just because you believe the propaganda and refuse to see the millions of holes in the argument you can’t see the silliness of the vast majority of arguments put forth by the cult. Trotting out a mentally challenged 16 year old girl is just your latest fuk-up. If you’re trying to convince anyone exploiting a kid is not the way to do it. And the ridiculous claim that 97% of scientists form a “consensus” when in science a consensus is not proof of anything. For every scientific discovery there was a time when 97% of scientists did not agree with it.

    Also, the fact that you are now suggesting those who don’t agree be “put against the wall” which is even more radical than when Bill Nye (the non-scientist guy) said “deniers” should be charged criminally and put in jail. You leftists always resort to enslavement and murder to make your point. It’s a feature with you despots.

    Trump 2020 Get the losers out of the Deep State

    • Elwood P. Dowd says:

      Kye,

      Do you think it’s OK to call people who understand global warming, “warmists”, as TEACH does? In fact, TEACH slurs others in almost every post. Why do you consider that OK? Strange.

      The facts are, it’s not a hoax, the data aren’t faked and it’s not a commie plot. Note too that those are not scientific arguments.

      The denialists trot out the arguments that 1) it’s not been proved (NB – theories are not proved) 2) consensus is not part of science (NB – it is).

      I certainly did not suggest anyone be put against the wall. In fact, YOU defended Ms. Thonberg’s remark yesterday until the tide turned against you. Now you’re full bore supporting that she meant to line up denialists and shoot them.

      Remember Malala? She was 15 when a Taliban terrorist shot her in the face and was only 17 when she was awarded the Nobel Prize for her activism. Was she too young and inexperienced to criticize the Taliban?

      • Bill589 says:

        Elwood, I think it’s OK to call people who understand global warming right. But you are wrong about it.
        The globe warms and cools and warms and cools regardless of the people.

        It would be good if YOU started to understand ‘global warming’.

        • Elwood P. Dowd says:

          Bill,

          We agree that the Earth warms and cools regardless of people. It also warms from the actions of people, and that’s what’s happening now.

          • formwiz says:

            We do? When did this happen?

            We agree that all you nonsense about warming is based on faked data and a ridiculous perversion of the scientific method.

      • formwiz says:

        Do you think it’s OK to call people who understand global warming, “warmists”, as TEACH does? In fact, TEACH slurs others in almost every post. Why do you consider that OK?

        Because you call people you don’t like racists and white supremacists?

        The facts are, it’s not a hoax, the data aren’t faked and it’s not a commie plot. Note too that those are not scientific arguments.

        If it’s a hoax, that’s a scientific statement (which you wouldn’t know if it bit you in the ass).

        If the data’s faked, that’s a scientific statement.

        And it’s clearly a Commie plot.

        The denialists trot out the arguments that 1) it’s not been proved (NB – theories are not proved) 2) consensus is not part of science (NB – it is).

        1 Lie

        2 It’s not.

        I certainly did not suggest anyone be put against the wall. In fact, YOU defended Ms. Thonberg’s remark yesterday until the tide turned against you. Now you’re full bore supporting that she meant to line up denialists and shoot them.

        Of course. she did and you were the one backing away from her now that the little psycho’s shown their true colors.

        As for what you’ve said, you’ve drooled at the prospect of white people disappearing for a long time.

        Remember Malala? She was 15 when a Taliban terrorist shot her in the face and was only 17 when she was awarded the Nobel Prize for her activism. Was she too young and inexperienced to criticize the Taliban?

        Who?

        And just because she was shot doesn’t make her word any more reliable than the 80 year old Buddhist that’s hated Moslems (with cause) all his life.

        This “A little child shall lead them” isn’t selling anymore. Didn’t sell with the Chinless Chipmunk (who used the same rap, only about guns), hasn’t sold with Bitchi Longstocking.

  5. Kye says:

    I did NOT support Greta’s remark until “the tide turned against” me. I defend it until the EVIDENCE showed I was incorrect by giving her the benefit of the doubt. Then, like any rational person I bowed to the evidence, something you are apparently unable or unwilling to do regarding both climate hysteria and Trump Derangement Syndrome. Oddly it takes very little actual evidence even after all the “predictions” have been wrong to have you even question the climate cultists let alone change your mind. Similarly, without any evidence other than third party rumor, hearsay and partisan bloviating you refuse to consider Trump innocent until proved guilty which I’m sure you would grant even the most heinous murder. So basically I’m willing to change my mind when shown my errors but you do not, nor do you comply with the most basic human right of presumed innocents. That’s the leftist version of “tolerance” right there.

    Trump 2020 Keep America great even tho the left says it never was.

    • Elwood P. Dowd says:

      Kye,

      What evidence changed your mind regarding Ms. Thunberg’s statement, apology and explanation?

      Do you really believe now she was threatening others with execution?

      You DO understand that we do not try our Presidents in criminal courts. They are tried by Congress with the penalty being removal from office. We don’t know what we would do if a President committed a violent crime, e.g., 1st degree murder or rape. Maybe 25th Amendment them and then charge them? We really haven’t had to consider this until now.

      Do you not accept the administration’s “summary” of the telephone call? Or all the evidence supplied by the witnesses with intimate knowledge of the happenings?

      Trump will certainly be acquitted by the Senate, so what’s your complaint?

      • formwiz says:

        Her apology was about as sincere as Jessuh Jackson’s after the Hymietown thing.

        And clearly she was.

        You DO understand that we do not try our Presidents in criminal courts. They are tried by Congress with the penalty being removal from office. We don’t know what we would do if a President committed a violent crime, e.g., 1st degree murder or rape. Maybe 25th Amendment them and then charge them? We really haven’t had to consider this until now.

        We don’t? Why not?

        Just because Mule Ears used a Justice rule to cover his ass doesn’t mean it can’t be done. And I know of no law that says we can’t. If you want a President removed from office, you can impeach and try him, but there’s nothing written down that says he can’t be arrested and tried for murder.

        Do you not accept the administration’s “summary” of the telephone call? Or all the evidence supplied by the witnesses with intimate knowledge of the happenings?

        You mean all the hearsay not admissible in a court of law? That’s not evidence.

        Kye is angry about the waste of time and money.

        Trump will certainly be acquitted by the Senate, so what’s your complaint?

        Abuse Of Power.

        Obstruction Of Congress.

        Fits the Demos more than Trump.

        PS If Trump calls Zippy and the Ozarks as witnesses and their criminal involvement in the Ukraine is brought forth, do you support hauling them into court and trying them for their offenses?

        • Kye says:

          “Kye is angry about the waste of time and money”

          Aren’t you? Actually on the bright side the Democommies were so tied up in treason they haven’t passed as many dreadful laws as they would have had they not gone insane. That helps America.

          Trump 2020 Watch for the massive leftists election fraud.

  6. formwiz says:

    Let’s get this straight, you don’t trust the data from 12,000 years ago, but you DO trust the data from the so-called Roman, Minoan and Medieval warm periods? Got it.

    No, you don’t because I never said anything of the sort. The thermometer wasn’t really developed until the 17 Century, so buying anything earlier is a fool’s errand, fool.

    But saying you will listen is just another lie.

    I never said I did, but Uncle Saul told you to put words in people’s mouths and watch them squirm.

    Those days are long gone.

    What evidence will “prove” to you that the Earth is warming?

    None because your idea of science is a lie.

    • Elwood P. Dowd says:

      The fool typed: The thermometer wasn’t really developed until the 17 Century, so buying anything earlier is a fool’s errand

      So there is no evidence of Minoan, Roman or Medieval warm periods.

      Then how do denialists know that the Earth has always warmed and cooled? Just a guess?

      According to so-called scientists, Homo sapiens have existed for about 200,000 years.

      Writing, the recording of human interpretation of experiences and the natural world, is thought to only be about 5000 years old. So really, how do we know anything before about 3000 BCE (assuming we can trust what was written long ago).

      • formwiz says:

        So there is no evidence of Minoan, Roman or Medieval warm periods.
        Then how do denialists know that the Earth has always warmed and cooled? Just a guess?

        We can make educated guesses, but that’s it. If you’re talking temperatures to 7 decimal points, you’re out of luck.

        According to so-called scientists, Homo sapiens have existed for about 200,000 years.

        Homosexuals for only about 50.

        Writing, the recording of human interpretation of experiences and the natural world, is thought to only be about 5000 years old. So really, how do we know anything before about 3000 BCE (assuming we can trust what was written long ago).

        More like 5000 BC, what Lefties call the Common Era is really the Christian Era. And that’s AD, Anno Domini.

        Archeology can give us clues, otherwise we go by what’s written and that’s not always reliable.

        Science has its limits.

  7. alanstorm says:

    “But it’s also the time when relatives with questionable stances on certain matters come out of the woodwork.”

    Yes, we call them “warmists”.

Bad Behavior has blocked 5897 access attempts in the last 7 days.