4 ms·

Just today Brietbart published articles pushing climate change denial and brigading Amazon reviews of a book because the said author disagrees with Donald Trump

by yedava 10y ago

Just today Brietbart published articles pushing climate change denial and brigading Amazon reviews of a book because the said author disagrees with Donald Trump. How does one reason with such an obstinate worldview?

Zenst 10y ago
Well for me the way to deal with the whole "climate change" is wrong, if they were to say - "who wants cleaner air and water" - Nobody would argue and things would just move forward and avoid getting hung up on debate and endless papers and research to spell out the common sense. It is like arguing the compass direction to the nearest degree when if you said is the general wind N,S,E or west then everybody would agree it's just one of those and things would move in the right general direction instead of doing circles for years upon years, whilst time waits for nobody. In short, its how you define the issue in a way that everybody can relate too better and if that means going indirectly with the side-effect being the target, then so be it.
- clock_tower 10y ago
  SlateStarCodex once outlined how you might make a conservative case for dealing with climate change; the Archdruid Report discusses the subject, too. The key is to only argue climate change; it's much easier to persuade people that climate change is an issue, than to persuade them that climate change is an issue and the only solution is Communism. Think cap-and-trade, lasting strategic independence (at least one Iraq hawk drove a Prius), and the irresponsible foreigners fouling up the atmosphere while we do our bit to help...
- CDotDot 10y ago
  > Well for me the way to deal with the whole "climate change" is wrong, if they were to say - "who wants cleaner air and water" - Nobody would argue and things would just move forward I've tried this argument many times with climate change skeptics. It almost always comes down to economics for them. They want cleaner air and water, but not at the expense of their wallets. Bringing up the long-term economic effects of climate change just brings us back to the original argument.
- misnome 10y ago
  Easy: "I can breath and drink water just fine, so why do you hate progress?"
tomjen3 10y ago
For one thing, come with an open mind. Don't just label it denial just because you disagree with it. Don't force your beliefs upon anybody else. Not that any of that matters, we are way past the point now where this house can be united (other than, ironically, a war with Mexico), we can only wait for it to collapse.

by yedava 10y ago

Zenst 10y ago

Well for me the way to deal with the whole "climate change" is wrong, if they were to say - "who wants cleaner air and water" - Nobody would argue and things would just move forward and avoid getting hung up on debate and endless papers and research to spell out the common sense. It is like arguing the compass direction to the nearest degree when if you said is the general wind N,S,E or west then everybody would agree it's just one of those and things would move in the right general direction instead of doing circles for years upon years, whilst time waits for nobody. In short, its how you define the issue in a way that everybody can relate too better and if that means going indirectly with the side-effect being the target, then so be it.

clock_tower 10y ago
SlateStarCodex once outlined how you might make a conservative case for dealing with climate change; the Archdruid Report discusses the subject, too. The key is to only argue climate change; it's much easier to persuade people that climate change is an issue, than to persuade them that climate change is an issue and the only solution is Communism. Think cap-and-trade, lasting strategic independence (at least one Iraq hawk drove a Prius), and the irresponsible foreigners fouling up the atmosphere while we do our bit to help...
CDotDot 10y ago
> Well for me the way to deal with the whole "climate change" is wrong, if they were to say - "who wants cleaner air and water" - Nobody would argue and things would just move forward I've tried this argument many times with climate change skeptics. It almost always comes down to economics for them. They want cleaner air and water, but not at the expense of their wallets. Bringing up the long-term economic effects of climate change just brings us back to the original argument.
misnome 10y ago
Easy: "I can breath and drink water just fine, so why do you hate progress?"

tomjen3 10y ago

For one thing, come with an open mind. Don't just label it denial just because you disagree with it. Don't force your beliefs upon anybody else. Not that any of that matters, we are way past the point now where this house can be united (other than, ironically, a war with Mexico), we can only wait for it to collapse.