Originally Posted by nihilist moron

I think it's more like an illustration of how some people can't handle reading opinions other than their own. That's when they start using terms like moron, denialist, etc.

P.S. Serious question for you or anyone else who wants to tackle it:
Do you believe that calling people denialists, liars etc helps them to change, to see things as they really are?

No. But denialists aren't interested in learning about the real science. They aren't looking to form an opinion. They already have one and their goal is to spread that opinion every where they can. Using rational arguments with a denialist of any sort (global warming, holocaust, evolution) is pointless. They have heard the rational, objective evidence and have chosen instead to go with ego, faith or racism. Those aren't rational motivations and will not be undone by more rationality on their opponents part. The best you can do with them is to call them exactly what they are and point out every single time that they lie. Your hope is to contain the idiocy and keep it from being spread by unwitting carriers. Don't let a single mistruth go un-debunked, to then be repeated by an innocent bystander somewhere else.

If you really are dealing with students who honestly want to learn but are filled with lies they have heard form deniers then rationality can work, given time. But, don't waste your time on obvious deniers.

Originally Posted by takascar2

Again, prove that 97 percent is true - quoting a politically biased newspaper doesn't count

Says the guy who referenced a propagandist piece done by a Heartland Institute flunky.

Originally Posted by nihilist moron

I think it's more like an illustration of how some people can't handle reading opinions other than their own. That's when they start using terms like moron, denialist, etc.

P.S. Serious question for you or anyone else who wants to tackle it:
Do you believe that calling people denialists, liars etc helps them to change, to see things as they really are?

If you are neutral as you say you are, then you're not a denialist. You just haven't become well-informed on the issue, in that case. But you do need to look at the facts. You can't honestly understand the situation, and still be a denialist. Denialists are people who refuse to look at the facts, usually because it does lead to conclusions that some government actions are needed. These denialists are not the folks who are going to change. They just need to be defeated politically. It so happens that in the USA, public opinion is strongly influenced by conservative/libertarian economics, encapsulated in Reagan's phrase "government is not the solution to our problems, government IS the problem." That ideology thwarts any government action on climate change and AGW.

Originally Posted by nihilist moron

Wait. What?
Why can't someone be skeptical or neutral on the issue of AGW but still be in favour of using renewable resources? l

If the non-renewable resources are running out, or getting more expensive, that's one reason for switching. Other kinds of pollution is another. The AGW issue makes switching more urgent.

But why be skeptical when the case is proven? What's wrong with the idea that, while we wait for 100% certainty instead of 90%, we are wasting time that will make the effects much more disasterous the longer we wait? Why not prepare, just in case the 97% of scientists are right? In fact, global warming is proceeding even faster than predicted.

btw the 97% figure is well-known and ubiquitous; it doesn't matter which newspaper reports it.

Originally Posted by B Butler

The endless senseless bickering you'll find on most any thread on this site will illustrate just how difficult it is for people to change, to see things as they are rather than as they are predisposed to want things to be.

Originally Posted by nihilist moron

I think it's more like an illustration of how some people can't handle reading opinions other than their own. That's when they start using terms like moron, denialist, etc.

I think we're stating essentially the same truth using different words.

Originally Posted by nihilist moron

P.S. Serious question for you or anyone else who wants to tackle it:
Do you believe that calling people denialists, liars etc helps them to change, to see things as they really are?

In general, I'd expect insulting people would tick them off and cause them to retrench deeper into their existing perspective. In general, the more insults, the faster a thread will devolve from discussion of an issue to personal attacks.

Some people do care about how they are perceived. If their position is shamefully inadequate, pointing this out might force them to reposition. If one is trying for this, it is often best to use their world view and values rather than one's own. Folks can often shrug off stuff that comes from outside of their world views.

Some people don't seem to care if they look stupid...

I suspect the primary reason to insult people is that it feels good, especially after they insult you. Not really a legitimate reason.

Originally Posted by B Butler

I think we're stating essentially the same truth using different words.

I don't think so.
Your "truth" is that it's difficult for people to change and to see things as they really are.
My "truth" is that some people are unable/unwilling to consider perspectives other than their own.
Unless, by "things as they really are," you meant the existence of other valid perspectives (?)

If their position is shamefully inadequate, pointing this out might force them to reposition. If one is trying for this, it is often best to use their world view and values rather than one's own. Folks can often shrug off stuff that comes from outside of their world views.

A few weeks ago, I had a talk with my friend's daughter, who grew up in England and now studies history at Oxford. She had been surprised to discover that history as taught in the U.S. is a simple memorization of facts, because in the U.K. (according to her) kids are taught that past events must be looked at from all perspectives in order to best determine what actually happened.
IMO, this difference could explain a lot about the American mindset, and why a lot of foreigners see us as the world's biggest assholes.

Some people don't seem to care if they look stupid...

Heh. While "nihilist moron denialist" has a nice ring to it, I certainly don't worry too much about getting called that by some dickhead on the internet.

Originally Posted by Vandal-72

Nope. A neutral observer? Can you show me evidence that anyone who claims such a position is in fact actually neutral?

Unfortunately, she is correct.


Prince

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

If you are neutral as you say you are, then you're not a denialist. You just haven't become well-informed on the issue, in that case.

Hey, now you're getting it!
I've already explained why I don't think it matters:

Originally Posted by nihilist moron

By the way, even if AGW is a Fact, it's painfully obvious that human beings aren't willing to make the drastic changes in their lives that would be needed to stop it. Especially the "don't have so many darned kids already" change. Hell, we can't even get Asian guys to stop buying poached rhino horn, because they think it will make their limp dicks hard.

Too many selfish people in the world trying to overcompensate for their weak little dicks.
If the issue is as "urgent" as you say it is, we will need to have a worldwide fascist Green Party dictatorship. And I certainly can't support that, as much as I might agree with the goals.

Originally Posted by Vandal-72

Got anything that actually refutes my claims or are you just interested in concern trolling?

Since you gave me some feedback on looking like an idiot, I thought I'd give you some feedback on looking like a prick.

Originally Posted by Vandal-72

T... Funny how all the experts that actually collect, analyze and interpret the real data have failed to see all of those holes. Ever considered stepping up and actually publishing some scientific research on these holes to help out the world's foremost experts on the topic? Or should we just recognize that you just want to stroke your own ego in peace?

I have to take an exception to this, at least to the extent that, "... all the experts that actually collect, analyze and interpret the real data have failed to see all of those holes." Climate science is a Swiss cheese science at best, and will never be able to escape that status. Climate is too vast and complex to ever be understood in full. That said, there are limits to what qualifies as supportable argument and what is conjecture or, worse, fantasy.

Here's an example of honest questioning (disagreement may be the wrong word for it).

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

If the non-renewable resources are running out, or getting more expensive, that's one reason for switching. Other kinds of pollution is another. The AGW issue makes switching more urgent.

Exactly what I was trying to say. AGW denial/skepticism is dissonant enough on its own, but that dissonance has to reach orders of magnitude more in order to build a case that fossil fuels don't have to go ASAP.

Originally Posted by nihilist moron

Hey, now you're getting it!
I've already explained why I don't think it matters:

Too many selfish people in the world trying to overcompensate for their weak little dicks.
If the issue is as "urgent" as you say it is, we will need to have a worldwide fascist Green Party dictatorship. And I certainly can't support that, as much as I might agree with the goals.

No, we don't need to have a worldwide fascist Green Party dictatorship. Why exaggerate? We just need the regulations and subsidies that the Green Party and liberal Democrats are requesting. We already have some of them. Population is actually irrelevant if we switch to renewable clean green energy. We can do it; the Chinese are already ahead of us. The USA should be setting the example, not holding things back as we are now. International agreements can be made. The new tech already exists, and conversion shoulda and coulda already have been done, but Reagan stopped it, and the Republicans block it. It's entirely a political issue of the wrong ideology. The weak dicks of fossil fuel company CEOs don't need to be catered to.

Originally Posted by Bronco80

Exactly what I was trying to say. AGW denial/skepticism is dissonant enough on its own, but that dissonance has to reach orders of magnitude more in order to build a case that fossil fuels don't have to go ASAP.

It's not so much building a case, since as a case it's already built; as much as convincing more people to abandon the Reagan/libertarian ideology.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

No, we don't need to have a worldwide fascist Green Party dictatorship. Why exaggerate?

My exaggeration was intentional and in response to yours, for which you have already provided an explanation:

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

It's not so much building a case, since as a case it's already built; as much as convincing more people to abandon the Reagan/libertarian ideology.

You and I agree on the goals, but not the means. It happens.

Originally Posted by B Butler

I think we're stating essentially the same truth using different words.

In general, I'd expect insulting people would tick them off and cause them to retrench deeper into their existing perspective.

Once again, there is no chance that a propagandizing denialist in an Internet forum is ever going to renounce their denialist position.

In general, the more insults, the faster a thread will devolve from discussion of an issue to personal attacks.

Denialists do everything in their power to avoid discussion of issues. They obfuscate and throw out red herrings like they are going out of style. Insults are the best way to get them off of their pre-set tract of complete misinformation. Any thread that has a denialist in it has virtually no chance of remaining a coherent discussion of the science.

Some people do care about how they are perceived. If their position is shamefully inadequate, pointing this out might force them to reposition.

Spoken like someone with absolutely no real world experience dealing with denialists.

If one is trying for this, it is often best to use their world view and values rather than one's own. Folks can often shrug off stuff that comes from outside of their world views.

Some people don't seem to care if they look stupid...

Case in point.

I suspect the primary reason to insult people is that it feels good, especially after they insult you. Not really a legitimate reason.

Once again, your complete lack of experience shines through. But go ahead and assume that you can see the issues more clearly than everyone else, it's your standard operating procedure.

Originally Posted by nihilist moron

Since you gave me some feedback on looking like an idiot, I thought I'd give you some feedback on looking like a prick.

So no. You don't have any evidence. You are just concern trolling. How utterly non-shocking.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

I have to take an exception to this, at least to the extent that, "... all the experts that actually collect, analyze and interpret the real data have failed to see all of those holes." Climate science is a Swiss cheese science at best, and will never be able to escape that status. Climate is too vast and complex to ever be understood in full. That said, there are limits to what qualifies as supportable argument and what is conjecture or, worse, fantasy.

Here's an example of honest questioning (disagreement may be the wrong word for it).

Seriously? You, who I believe would honestly admit that they aren't an expert on climate science, are going to declare the entire field a Swiss cheese science?

Chemistry is too vast and complex to ever be understood in full.

Biology is too vast and complex to ever be understood in full.

Particle physics is too vast and complex to ever be understood in full.

Astronomy is too vast and complex to ever be understood in full.

Genetics is too vast and complex to ever be understood in full.

All of those are true statements. But, I don't see you going around accusing chemistry of being "Swiss cheese" and declaring the consensus of experts in the field to be open for criticism by relatively ignorant outsiders.

From your link: What’s firmly established is that the climate is warming, that the buildup of human-generated heat-trapping greenhouse gases is contributing substantially to the warming and that while the buildup of gases is steady, the rise in temperatures is not.

Is this a hole that the denialists are claiming that the experts missed? No. You give the denialists far more credit than they deserve.

Originally Posted by nihilist moron

My exaggeration was intentional and in response to yours, for which you have already provided an explanation.

You and I agree on the goals, but not the means. It happens.

It won't work that way. Libertarian economics is the obstacle to dealing with global warming. Government is part of the solution, not the problem. Fossil fuel companies are the problem. Duh.

Paul Ryan and other Republicans talk that way too. NO. If we disagree on the "means," we disagree on the goals. Allowing big business to do whatever it wants = ruining our planet.

I checked back on this thread to see if anyone responded to my post, but I see Vandal's posts illustrated my point better than I ever could.

http://youtu.be/T2J8zEJHIg8

Originally Posted by Vandal-72

Once again, there is no chance that a propagandizing denialist in an Internet forum is ever going to renounce their denialist position.

I think you're wrong. In principle, it could happen. Still, putting it at a four sigma probability might be about right.

Originally Posted by Vandal-72

Once again, your complete lack of experience shines through. But go ahead and assume that you can see the issues more clearly than everyone else, it's your standard operating procedure.

OK

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

If we disagree on the "means," we disagree on the goals.

Yeah. I realized that I might have made a mistake after I wrote that, was waiting for you to confirm.

Getting people to change their "ideology" has never been one of my goals. But I do see that a lot with activists, where the purported issue is the means rather than the ends. It's not a very productive attitude to have, IMO. But then, "production" is not their goal.

Originally Posted by nihilist moron

Yeah. I realized that I might have made a mistake after I wrote that, was waiting for you to confirm.

Getting people to change their "ideology" has never been one of my goals. But I do see that a lot with activists, where the purported issue is the means rather than the ends. It's not a very productive attitude to have, IMO. But then, "production" is not their goal.

Huh. This may be a first in that I may actually disagree with you, NMD.
(I think I'm in a 'state of shock'! )

I may be off here, but isn't our 'legal system' as well as 'scientific research' basically based-on "process"?


Prince

PS:



(I'm not sure which one I am yet. Maybe both! )

Originally Posted by princeofcats67

I may be off here, but isn't our 'legal system' as well as 'scientific research' basically based-on "process"?

I don't think that I explained myself very well.

Using Eric as an example:
purported issue = stop global warming
real issue = stop libertarianism

Does that make more sense?

(I'm not sure which one I am yet. Maybe both! )

Definitely both!!

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

If the non-renewable resources are running out, or getting more expensive, that's one reason for switching. Other kinds of pollution is another. The AGW issue makes switching more urgent.

But why be skeptical when the case is proven? What's wrong with the idea that, while we wait for 100% certainty instead of 90%, we are wasting time that will make the effects much more disasterous the longer we wait? Why not prepare, just in case the 97% of scientists are right? In fact, global warming is proceeding even faster than predicted.

btw the 97% figure is well-known and ubiquitous; it doesn't matter which newspaper reports it.

The case is *************NOT************* proven. Just saying it doesn't make it true.

Again, I CHALLENGE YOU to provide PROOF about the 97% number or else you are just making stuff up.

Science is about proof, you've provided NONE.

Now to be clear, my position on AGW is that I DONT KNOW if its real or not, but I am unwilling to take the word of people who
have a vested interest in Big Government Nanny State solutions - they think that how you make everything better - take people's
RIGHTS away and make them helpless before the Big Brother Government. That is LEFT's agenda - that is their motivation for
pushing the AGW idea. They do this using religious terms like "denier" (eg heretic) and using alarming phrases like "There is no more
discussion to be had - debate is no longer allowed". That right there sets off loud alarm bells. It is an anti-democratic, anti-intellectual
attitude.

I have seen MUCH evidence that refutes or calls into question the "A" in AGW. Maybe its all bunk, probably it isn't. Not being a climate
scientist, I cannot tell who is right, so I have to analyze motives and apply an understanding of human nature to compute a probability
about the veracity of AGW claims.

Applying this criteria, I come up with a 50-50% split - I see alterior motives and hidden agendas on BOTH sides.

Also, from what I've heard from more than one source, the proposed solutions (carbon taxes, etc), will do VERY little to address the
alleged magnitude of the problem. If the AGWers are correct, we would have to simply stop using all carbon within the next 10
years and even then, the feedback loops may already be running.

We cannot stop using carbon-based fuels at this time. It would shut down our economy and BILLIONS would be unemployed and would starve.

Agriculture would cease as without modern petroleum based fertilizers, we would end up loosing 75% of our crop yields.

So, even if what the AGWers say is true, their proposed solution is lame and will be ineffective. The real solution would starve billions to
death. On the other hand if AGWers are correct, billions will die anyways. So, why do something ineffective or take a cure thats at least
as bad as the disease?

I cannot confirm any of the facts that I mentioned above - just opining based on what AGWers say.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

... The weak dicks of fossil fuel company CEOs don't need to be catered to.

Some nice scientific analysis there, Eric the Liberal - still waiting for proof of the 97% number.....
(not holding my breath, since its psychodynamically impossible for it to be true, but I digress.....)