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

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.

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...

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?

1 child policy while he has 5. GG.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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?

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

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.