5 ms·

"No one is quite sure whats going on, but apparently due to climate change" Look... statements like that, don't help any serious arguments for climate change.

"No one is quite sure whats going on, but apparently due to climate change" Look... statements like that, don't help any serious arguments for climate change. To practical-skeptics, you might as well have written "IDK BUT WE BETTER FAVOR SOME COMPANIES WITH TAXES TO BE SAFE" which is a real annoyance of mine. Esp considering other commenters pretty much ruled out your assumption.

cfadvan 9y ago
AGW skeptics, like evolution and spheroid Earth skeptics are their own audience, no one else is really bothering to tailor their speech to them. We’ve entered the casually dismissive phase of the relationship. The ROI for dealing with people who are in denial is rarely positive after all.
- neves 9y ago
  I was watching the marvelous new edition of the Comos series, and it was really annoying the time spend rebuffing theories like "evolution does not exist" or "no prove of global warning". Please give more of the good stuff.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- delbel 9y ago
  "AGW skeptics" just want a sincere conversation based on science. Like one would say, what about the effects of water vapor on climate change? And pointing out, you can't come to a conclusion and when it is disproven, cherry pick facts to fix your conclusion. It just doesn't work this way. So is it a sincere conversation or what? There's no point to engage with people who aren't honest about the science. Name calling, shaming, or framing them as "in denial" just confirms their observation the conversion isn't sincere.
  - yungchin 9y ago
    > Like one would say, what about the effects of water vapor on climate change? Is that a skeptics' thing? The answer is, water vapour is yet another positive feedback. https://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/vapor_warming.html https://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/vapor_warming.htm...
  - cfadvan 9y ago
    "AGW skeptics" just want a sincere conversation based on science. Twenty years ago, maybe. Today it’s like your racist uncle who always wants a “reasonable discussion about immigration” that would make a National Front member blush. You can’t blame the rest of us for figuring out the game and refusing to play.
- whatshisface 9y ago
  As reasonable as that seems, the reality is stark: keeping the debate officially open is a bet that you'll be able to win arguments, and telling your opponents it's over is a bet that they won't be able to scrape together any political power. Don't slam on the brakes until you've crossed that finish line, wherever that is. The failure of climate-control laws to get passed should send a clear signal that debate is actually the only place where "climate change is happening" can win.
  - cfadvan 8y ago
    Only if a debate is had in good faith, does it have any hope of being something other than a waste of time. There’s a reason that scientists don’t debate flat earthers and young esrthers. Sometimes the debate acts only to legitimize a viewpoint which is beyond fringe, or provide cherry picking fodder for morons. The sad truth of climate change is that debate is beside the point, it’s pure power dynamics. Massively rich and powerful entrenched interests simply don’t care about debate or consensus, they just want to keep profiting until the bitter end. They’re not really related to the keyboard warriors online who for ideological or psychological reasons want to endlesssly “debate” the issue.

cfadvan 9y ago

AGW skeptics, like evolution and spheroid Earth skeptics are their own audience, no one else is really bothering to tailor their speech to them. We’ve entered the casually dismissive phase of the relationship. The ROI for dealing with people who are in denial is rarely positive after all.

neves 9y ago
I was watching the marvelous new edition of the Comos series, and it was really annoying the time spend rebuffing theories like "evolution does not exist" or "no prove of global warning". Please give more of the good stuff.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
delbel 9y ago
"AGW skeptics" just want a sincere conversation based on science. Like one would say, what about the effects of water vapor on climate change? And pointing out, you can't come to a conclusion and when it is disproven, cherry pick facts to fix your conclusion. It just doesn't work this way. So is it a sincere conversation or what? There's no point to engage with people who aren't honest about the science. Name calling, shaming, or framing them as "in denial" just confirms their observation the conversion isn't sincere.
- yungchin 9y ago
  > Like one would say, what about the effects of water vapor on climate change? Is that a skeptics' thing? The answer is, water vapour is yet another positive feedback. https://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/vapor_warming.html https://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/vapor_warming.htm...
- cfadvan 9y ago
  "AGW skeptics" just want a sincere conversation based on science. Twenty years ago, maybe. Today it’s like your racist uncle who always wants a “reasonable discussion about immigration” that would make a National Front member blush. You can’t blame the rest of us for figuring out the game and refusing to play.
whatshisface 9y ago
As reasonable as that seems, the reality is stark: keeping the debate officially open is a bet that you'll be able to win arguments, and telling your opponents it's over is a bet that they won't be able to scrape together any political power. Don't slam on the brakes until you've crossed that finish line, wherever that is. The failure of climate-control laws to get passed should send a clear signal that debate is actually the only place where "climate change is happening" can win.
- cfadvan 8y ago
  Only if a debate is had in good faith, does it have any hope of being something other than a waste of time. There’s a reason that scientists don’t debate flat earthers and young esrthers. Sometimes the debate acts only to legitimize a viewpoint which is beyond fringe, or provide cherry picking fodder for morons. The sad truth of climate change is that debate is beside the point, it’s pure power dynamics. Massively rich and powerful entrenched interests simply don’t care about debate or consensus, they just want to keep profiting until the bitter end. They’re not really related to the keyboard warriors online who for ideological or psychological reasons want to endlesssly “debate” the issue.