In a word
Don’t
Especially if they are Progressives. They are all rigid, myopic ideologues bound by talking points without critical adult thinking. It’s exceedingly rare that any will ever change their minds, as most are close-minded and interested in political advantage and instituting their far left dogma of big fascistic government (for Other People), not science.
Sure, the conversations can be fun as you reduce them to quivering masses of moonbattery, to the point they stomp off. Some are better than others, yet the majority are unhinged, and you’re wasting your breathe and time.
Have you noticed that few of my “climate change” posts are aimed at changing minds? A good chunk are simply derogatory towards Warmists (really, I don’t bother with most issues. I used to attempt to sway minds, as did other conservatives, but that ended years ago). Well, they are aimed at middle ground thinkers to a degree.
On a few occasions there can be debate, as witnessed here recently. But, ask a Warmist why they don’t walk the talk and it goes goofy.
Anyhow, this can all be summed up by the saying “don’t try to teach a pig to dance. You waste your time and annoy the pig.”
Where did all this come from? Well, Geoff Dembicki at Salon tries the old “how to talk to a conservative about Hotcoldwetdry”
Our climate change debate is stuck in a “left-wing ghetto.†That was one provocative conclusion reached during a high-level panel of politicians, environmental thinkers, journalists and business people in London, England.
“[Twenty] years of ‘awareness raising,’ grandiose pleas to save the planet, lots of talk about sacrifice, apocalyptic messages and photos of polar bears,†a recent summary report explained, “have trapped climate change in a niche that it urgently needs to break out of.â€
Perhaps that’s because you folks are chicken little’s who refuse to practice what you preach, and all your “solutions” revolve around Big Government, taxation, and control of citizens and the private economy.
I’ll skip through lots of the silliness, including a mention of the much discredited “97% consensus” meme, getting to how “social scientist”, ie, community organizers with an agenda to push, think they can get Conservatives to buy into their far left Progressive beliefs
1. We’re all a bit irrational…Yet getting conservatives concerned about global warming means liberals need to first recognize their own moral biases, and how the climate arguments they make can reinforce them. (In other words, Liberals are emotional messes arguing from some sort of misguided moral position, and need to act like adults)
2. Information is rarely neutral…“Once someone connects a position on an issue to their cultural identity,†Hoffman said, “to try and get them to accept something that contradicts that identity is really challenging.†(Liberals believe that everything causes Hotcoldwetdry, Conservatives immediately reject most notions of AGW)
3. Too much fear will backfire…One tactic used again and again by climate change campaigners is fear: alarm the public enough about rising sea levels, extended droughts and infectious diseases, and surely it will be convinced to take action on the issue. (all the Warmists do is fear-monger.)
One fascinating study, conducted in part by Stanford University’s Robb Willer, suggested when people’s belief in a just world is challenged by dire climate predictions, they become less determined to shrink their carbon footprint. (and, humorously, Warmists are the worst offenders)
4. Messengers can trump messages…Knowing that left and right-wing people approach morality from different perspectives, filter facts through separate emotions and aren’t motivated equally by fear, how can a climate change campaigner hope to be heard across the divide? Perhaps by handing the microphone to someone else. (but most they hand the microphone to who are Republicans will be ignored. Because they’re idiots to buy into the “climate change” narrative)
5. ‘Green’ has its limits…But in order to convince opinion leaders outside the so-called “left-wing ghetto†that global warming is an urgent issue, campaigners need to speak a different language. And that might mean not invoking “green†values at all. (they’re not talking about being realistic, but about language changes, such as “Farmers worry about “diminished crop yields.— Despite crop yields growing by leaps and bounds. Or the way global warming was changed to “we’re all f*cking doomed because you drive a fossil fueled vehicle…now I have to pick up the kids in the Suburban after the climate change rally”)
In the end, Liberals and Conservatives do tend to agree on certain things: we do want to move towards alternative energy sources. Most conservatives have no problem with solar, wind, hydrothermal, and others. We disagree with how to get there. We agree in conserving the planet. How we get there is the bone of contention. We agree on clean air, water, and land. We don’t agree that a trace gas necessary for life will make the earth a polluted wasteland. And we don’t agree that the solutions should be massive fascistic government.
Warmists keep trying to find ways to “talk” to people about their beliefs. But, that’s all they do. They themselves are hypocrites. Would you listen to a guy who’s obesely overweight saying that everyone should cut back on their calories?
As a longtime oil and gas engineer who helped develop shale fracking techniques for the Energy Department, I can assure you that this gas is not “clean.†Because of leaks of methane, the main component of natural gas, the gas extracted from shale deposits is not a “bridge†to a renewable energy future — it’s a gangplank to more warming and away from clean energy investments.
