Global Warming is not only NOT a hoax, but it is about 10,000 times worst than your worst nightmare.

page: 48
101
<< 45  46  47    49  50  51 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 23 2010 @ 04:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by malcr

What the article did state is that there is only one way to counteract the denier and that is to not ignore them, always reply politely and accurately with the truth and get them to explain their viewpoint. Now I understand your frustration, I succumb to it now and then but we just have to plod on. Remember our kids and grandkids need us give them a secure future and not one blighted by war as nations scramble for the limited resources (water, arable land etc) that will be left.



There is no way to counteract a denier. I absolutely disagree with that article.

I have been doing these debates for 2 years now and in that time I have never ever ever EVER (as in not once) seen a "denier" change his mind.

And I realize this going into the debate which is why I often don't bother responding. Why should I pick a fight that I know I cannot win.

It is the same as debating a creationist or a Jahovah Witness (sp?). These people have beliefs that they simply are not willing to budge on. They know that AGW is not a real threat, or a hoax, or whatever, and because they KNOW that, all evidence that points to the contrary must be wrong.

That is no way to debate. It's just crazy making. That is why eventually I will give up and so will Melatonin and so will you. It's not a matter of if, but when. They will come back with nonsense over and over and over and over until we finally realize that we have been wasting our breath the entire time.

Debating a denier is simply not possible.




posted on Dec, 23 2010 @ 04:11 AM
link   
What's your best argument to make climate change deniers shut up?

Eggnog Answer: Please pass the eggnog.

Longer Answer: Ideologically-driven climate change deniers are impervious to facts and reason, so there is no argument that will convince them (see eggnog answer). For everyone else, I consider the increasing heat content of the ocean to be the single most compelling fact demonstrating that global warming is occurring due to heat-trapping pollution. Jim Hansen of NASA calls this the smoking gun. The total quantity of energy stored in the form of excess ocean heat is so vast that it can only be explained by a persistent imbalance between the energy the Earth receives from the sun and the energy the Earth returns to space. That imbalance is a direct result of the increasing concentration of heat-trapping pollution in the atmosphere.

www.huffingtonpost.com...



posted on Dec, 23 2010 @ 04:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mez353
reply to post by atlasastro
 


Like Libby you won’t take on board anything that counters your argument for AGW so there is no point to this thread anymore. Yes you are all right and we are all wrong. We should be shot. Happy now?


That is called projection Mez (in psychology I mean). It's where you ascribe to others traits that you yourself actually have.

It's like if I lie to you and then call you a liar.

It's not that we won't hear counter arguments to AGW, it's that YOU won't hear facts. You Google "global warming hoax" and then search around looking for something that proves your point.

If you were interested in getting to the truth, you would google "evidence for and against global warming" and then you would start reading and weighing the credibility of arguments and research on both sides.

If you did that, you would realize that every single thing I have said is fact.

And as to my last post (above), where is all that extra heat in the ocean coming from?



posted on Dec, 23 2010 @ 08:28 AM
link   


1 child policy while he has 5. GG.
edit on 23-12-2010 by AndrewJay because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 23 2010 @ 08:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by The_Liberator
I didn't feel like responding to all of them because the first 25 or so that I responded to (above) were all just nonsense. I feel like I am debating a 4th grader.

Note the last three words of my post Libby. Don't take things too seriously.



posted on Dec, 23 2010 @ 09:11 AM
link   

There is no way to counteract a denier.


You proved in your other post that there is, by walking out on them.


I have been doing these debates for 2 years now and in that time I have never ever ever EVER (as in not once) seen a "denier" change his mind.

So your wife is still happy you left then, that's good.


And I realize this going into the debate which is why I often don't bother responding. Why should I pick a fight that I know I cannot win.

You mean she has her own belief system and principles.


It is the same as debating a creationist or a Jahovah Witness (sp?).

Or you wife apparently

These people have beliefs that they simply are not willing to budge on. They know that AGW is not a real threat, or a hoax, or whatever, and because they KNOW that, all evidence that points to the contrary must be wrong.

Or maybe she is sick of living with a control freak.


That is no way to debate. It's just crazy making. That is why eventually I will give up and so will Melatonin and so will you. It's not a matter of if, but when. They will come back with nonsense over and over and over and over until we finally realize that we have been wasting our breath the entire time.

Altasarse'ole or whatever his name is is sure gonna be upset that you didn't name him.


Debating a denier is simply not possible.

I think you meant dictating to here instead of debating.



posted on Dec, 23 2010 @ 09:29 AM
link   


That is called projection Mez (in psychology I mean). It's where you ascribe to others traits that you yourself actually have.


Did you study psychology for 2 years and then drop out of that too Libby?
No it's not called projection, it's called boredom, Atlasarse'ole bores me with his little pipsqueaks.

As we're on the subject of psychology and your 'ability' to diagnose, how's thing with your narcissistic wife? Patched things up yet or still leaving her to take care of her daughter and your son?
I have to ask because you never went back onto that thread after everyone there saw what a cock you were.
Now I don't know what the psychological term for that would be but I would say it seems like cowardice to me.
So in the future, keeping your half baked psychology quietly to yourself might be something that you should reflect on, but as I've suggested it you'll probably dismiss it completely out of hand.

By the way, I answered your 2 questions, how about answering mine or can you do the decent thing (hard for you I know) and at least explain why you are ignoring them?



posted on Dec, 23 2010 @ 01:18 PM
link   
reply to post by The_Liberator
 



I have been doing these debates for 2 years now and in that time I have never ever ever EVER (as in not once) seen a "denier" change his mind.


It really depends on how far gone they are along the skeptic denier scale. I have seen a handful of skeptics change their minds. And that's because they were true skeptics though - able to process all the information with scrutiny, but more importantly with humility and objectivity, rather than ideology.


You're absolutely right about the projection thing Lib. Most of the hardcore deniers I meet always end up telling me the same story: How they used to believe in global warming, but then found out it was full of lies and hidden agendas, at which point they proceed to tell me how I just can't see this truth because I'm so emotionally brainwashed by my "beliefs".

This tells me a number of things:

1. They don't really know a lot about AGW to begin with.

So most likely they got their education from An Inconvenient Truth. And so they were the ones who got emotionally sucked in by Al Gore's sentimental droll. I can just see them all sitting there: eyes watering up, heart strings being tugged as they watch that poor polar bear swim around with nowhere to go *sob*.

What this means though is all of their experience and knowledge about this subject is tied to emotion, not ours. They really have a hard time understanding that some of us actually got "indoctrinated into the AGW cult" by studying much more boring parts like the math and science FIRST.

2. This emotionally vulnerable state is why they all get sucked into denialist propaganda so easily.

Those of us who entered the subject from a "skeptical" state to begin with, take the same lucid approach when dealing with the other side of the fence. That's why it doesn't take long for us to see who's actually being totally full of sh** here.

But for the textbook climate denier - their emotional state leaves them ripe for the picking:

Denier puppet master: "Al Gore lied!"

Denier puppet: "NO!"

Denier puppet master "YES! He's being sued in British court to prevent the film from being shown in the classroom because it's just political propaganda!" (Never mind the fact that he won that case, and the film was determined to be "broadly accurate").

The trap is set. Because these people were never real skeptics to begin with, and because they now find themselves in an emotionally confused state thanks to all this he said she said - they get easily sucked in and appeased by the "easy answers" the denialists feed them:

"climate's always changing", "CO2 is the air we breathe", "temperature leads carbon therefore CO2 is an effect and not a cause".

So when you try countering with logical but complicated answers like explaining the carbon cycle to them or how feedbacks work - all this does is take them back to that emotionally confused state. And they really don't like it!

So instead they just project all of their loopy psychodrama onto you:

"You just can't see the truth because you're so blinded by your emotional attachment to polar bears!!"



So yeah, arguing with a full blown denier is pointless. All the facts and critical thinking in the world can't help them, because it just takes them back to their confused unhappy place. And they just can't get past it, other than to fall back on the easy answers - no matter how wrong they actually are.

I think malcr's advice is pretty solid, but it needs to be applied to those climate skeptics who are actual skeptics - not wasted on the ones who have crossed the event horizon into blissful, arrogant ignorance.



posted on Dec, 23 2010 @ 02:24 PM
link   
reply to post by mc_squared
 


You and Libby should write a sitcom or a play as you love to write conversational prose don't you? As for malcr's post, well, at least you understood it then as to me it was garbled drunken Scottish rubbish. Well, it was mid afternoon when he posted it. Can you translate please?

Just a small point, never seen Gore's film, avoided it like the plague. What are the best bits? The bits where he says do as I say not as I do I suppose.

Wanna discuss my answers to Libby's questions or in the absence of his answers to mine, answer them for him? Afterall, you've only offered opinion on what constitutes a 'denier' to this debate and some congratulatory back slapping, nothing else, so it's about time you got started don't you think?
edit on 23/12/2010 by Mez353 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 23 2010 @ 11:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Mez353
 




Mez, I'm not sure what question you are referring to. Can you refresh me?

As to your comments about my "epic" threads, that's just me. I have 3 videos on Youtube and they have over 1.5 million views collectively. And I won't put a new video up until I have one that I believe can live up to my last 3!
That's just my personality.

As to your comments about my wife, I don't think you quite understand what I am going through. It's not "her side" vs. "my side" (and for the record they moved that thread to the 'relationships' section, which kind of sucks, but whatever...)

My wife is mentally ill. I am not in the least upset by your comments, but you really have to realize that we are dealing with an abusive and mentally ill person. She raised a daughter on her own and her daughter is about as emotionally unhealthy as she is, and I'm stuck in the middle with a son.

My only goal at this point in my life is to make sure that my son does not befall the same fate as her daughter.

Now back to the topic at hand, could you please repeat the questions that you asked of me?

And you and I are debating on here for the hell of it....sort of like a hobby. But I am seriously suffering with my crazy wife at home, and it's a lot more serious than some silly anonymous forum. .

So let's both be fair and not use my mentally ill wife against me.....of course, your mental illness is fair game
lol



posted on Dec, 23 2010 @ 11:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by AndrewJay

1 child policy while he has 5. GG.
edit on 23-12-2010 by AndrewJay because: (no reason given)


So what? I believe that the rich should be taxed at 90% as they were up until the L.B.J. administration (when the middle class was BOOMING!!!), and I am NOT rich.

My family has 2 cars and I think there should be a 1 car/family policy.

At some point our population conundrum has to be solved.



posted on Dec, 23 2010 @ 11:54 PM
link   

I have been doing these debates for 2 years now and in that time I have never ever ever EVER (as in not once) seen a "denier" change his mind.

Well.... there's me. I changed my mind. I used to be a climate denier, but then I learned that I was wrong. Apparently that's something most deniers cannot accept.
edit on 24/12/10 by C0bzz because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 24 2010 @ 12:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by C0bzz

I have been doing these debates for 2 years now and in that time I have never ever ever EVER (as in not once) seen a "denier" change his mind.

Well.... there's me. I changed my mind. I used to be a climate denier, but then I learned that I was wrong. Apparently that's something most deniers cannot accept.
edit on 24/12/10 by C0bzz because: (no reason given)


WOW!!!!!!

Thanks for that man! I'm curious, what convinced you that you were wrong, and furthermore what made you a skeptic in the first place? I'm really curious because you are a VERY rare case!

Looking forward to your response!



posted on Dec, 24 2010 @ 12:29 AM
link   
reply to post by mc_squared
 


I suppose you are right about there being a 'scale'.

I guess I have been unlucky in that I have just never met an AGW skeptic that was open to hearing facts. As in never (and I mean literally never, lol)



posted on Dec, 24 2010 @ 04:35 AM
link   
reply to post by The_Liberator
 

Go back to the 20th Dec and again to the 6th.
I want your opinion on the BAS article about phytoplankton, and your opinion on Dr David Evans' article who was a consultant to the Australian Greenhouse Office from 1999 to 2005.
www.theaustralian.com.au...
Also, please tell me why you think that there aren't 31,000 scientists that are against AGW as you said this is false. You said this even after I provided you with a list of the scientists by speciality and the website details where you can research each scientist yourself. Here is the list yet again: www.petitionproject.org...
So, I provide factual evidence and you say it's false. Isn't that what you accuse a denier of doing?
I answered the 2 questions you asked of me, do you want to discuss this further?



posted on Dec, 24 2010 @ 08:57 AM
link   
reply to post by mc_squared
 


I suppose we are talking about 2 things. Someone who is skeptical about global warming because they only have a cursory knowledge of the subject and have "heard" about climategate and that there is debate among scientists.

I have had discussions with people that said, "oh wow, I thought global warming was a hoax, but now that I see the evidence, I realize it is real!"

So yes, you are right.

However, I don't consider those people skeptics, I consider them to be rational people who have not yet taken a look at the evidence.

But yes, I should make a distinction between "skeptic" and "denier". Mez is what you call a DENIER.



posted on Dec, 24 2010 @ 09:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mez353
reply to post by The_Liberator
 

Go back to the 20th Dec and again to the 6th.
I want your opinion on the BAS article about phytoplankton, and your opinion on Dr David Evans' article who was a consultant to the Australian Greenhouse Office from 1999 to 2005.
www.theaustralian.com.au...
Also, please tell me why you think that there aren't 31,000 scientists that are against AGW as you said this is false. You said this even after I provided you with a list of the scientists by speciality and the website details where you can research each scientist yourself. Here is the list yet again: www.petitionproject.org...
So, I provide factual evidence and you say it's false. Isn't that what you accuse a denier of doing?
I answered the 2 questions you asked of me, do you want to discuss this further?



Took me about all of 10 seconds to find a thorough debunking of Dr. Evans.

scienceblogs.com...

Ok, now let me take a look at the other claims you made and let's see how long it takes me to refute them (easily).

Here goes....



posted on Dec, 24 2010 @ 09:09 AM
link   
reply to post by Mez353
 


Took me all of 3 seconds to find a debunking of the "petitionproject"

www.huffingtonpost.com...


This is what you say is "factual" evidence?

Please give me a link to the BAS article and let me see how long it takes me to debunk it.

Ok....NOW, I'm going to read what you said about methane and the ocean heating and let's see (once again), how long it takes me to point out flaws in your argument.

Here goes....(sigh)
edit on 24-12-2010 by The_Liberator because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 24 2010 @ 09:37 AM
link   
reply to post by Mez353
 


I started to reply to your response to my questions, but I have to go pick up some food and get ready for a X-mas eve party. Plus I have about 15 presents to wrap


In fairness, you took the time to answer my questions so I will take the time to sit and carefully read what you wrote and provide you with a response.

But for now, gotta run.

Hope you are having a happy holiday.



posted on Dec, 24 2010 @ 01:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mez353
reply to post by mc_squared
 


You and Libby should write a sitcom or a play as you love to write conversational prose don't you?


We don't have to. Climate deniers write the sitcom for us. We just sit back and take notes really. I just wish they'd come up with some new material. I've seen the "every planet in dah solar system is heating up" episode about 600,000 times now. Kinda bored.

As for answering Lib's questions you'll have to be more specific. I've been drifting in and out of this conversation and all I really see is you taking pot shots at his wife and kid (real classy, by the way
).

If you mean your 100 points from the other page, yeah not really interested. I've seen this episode before too and I already know how it ends. You're going to get schooled and it's only going to make you that much more indignant and defensive as a result. This is how the slippery slope from wannabe skeptic to full blown denier gets that much slippery-er.

You want answers to those questions then go through my post history. I'll bet they're all in there 10 times over by now. But I'm done playing this game because it's absolutely pointless. You want to see why then look here. That's the last time I got sucked into one of these "anzwer zee qwestions!" monkey trials.

I answered the first ten points thoroughly, showing not only that they were wrong - but that they were often deliberately misleading the reader, aka LYING. I'll bet those same ten points are regurgitated in your 100. In fact, I see 3 covered amongst the first 5 already. So yeah, go have a look at those responses - I provided plenty of links to back them up. But then make sure you scroll down the page and see the cop out reply I got once I did answer zee questions:


The thing is MC, is that your posts are nothing but rhetoric, the difference is
that your rhetoric isn't useless, since it is backed by Science: With an agenda


Yes, that's right. My posts are nothing but rhetoric apparently. "Rhetoric" that just happens to be non-useless and backed by science, lol.

But of course it doesn't matter - because if you answer the questions with science, then that just means the science has an agenda now. Deniers always have a fallback option to make everything fit their deluded world view you see. Especially when that view gets obstructed by annoying things like "science".





top topics
 
101
<< 45  46  47    49  50  51 >>

log in

join