Skip to main content

View Diary: Climate Chaos: some key 2012 events (49 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Do not despair... :) (4+ / 0-)

    You can't reach the denialists. You can, however, reach people who don't have the time or the skills to cut through all that BS. Being able to provide such a link and to say "the data just don't support this" goes a long way in cutting online 'discussions' short. At least that's my experience.

    Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away. -- Philip K. Dick

    by RandomGuyFromGermany on Sun Dec 30, 2012 at 09:15:56 AM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  Sigh ... (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      indubitably, Cliss, Creosote

      1.  My target is to not let the denialists, in forums like this, speak unchallenged -- not to convince denialists, but to try to reach those watching/listening in.  Sadly, the Gish Gallop does work to confuse the situation.

      2.  Sadly, as the diary's material points to, there are many reasons for 'despair' even as we must retain hope in our ability to reduce impacts and even turn things around for the better.

      Blogging regularly at Get Energy Smart NOW! for a sustainable energy future.

      by A Siegel on Sun Dec 30, 2012 at 09:35:07 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  How to build some obstacles for the gallop... (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        A Siegel, eOz

        Cut it short, go pre-emptive and proclaim that the guy certainly is about to make at least two of the four mistakes that denialists always make:

        1. Denialists always contradict each other.
        2. Denialists always jump to stupid conclusions.
        3. Denialists always lie about data.
        4. Denialists always get the science wrong.

        And they do this, because (a) they are so stupid to believe their nonsense themselves or (b) are just deceptive liars who would know better.

        (...don't bother about the fine print; let them taste their own medicine)

        ----

        The following might serve as a starting point how to 'prove' that claims.

        1. Denialists always contradict each other.

        For instance it has both been claimed that the greenhouse effect (a) would contradict the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics and (b) that the absorption bands would have been saturated - but the second argument accepts the mechanics of the greenhouse effect so they can't both be true.

        (...one example is totally enough; if they dispute is, gallop to the next point ;-)

        2. Denialists always jump to stupid conclusions.

        For instance it has been claimed that CO2 historically trailed temperatures - implicitly meaning that it couldn't possibly be the case this time.  Which is a stupid conclusion, because it simply means that this time it's different, because of mankind and their burning of fossil fuel.

        3. Denialists always lie about data.

        For instance it has been claimed that weather stations would be biased towards warmer temperatures, or that the data had been doctored etc. - all of which claims have been conclusively rebutted by a study that had been financed by the very deniers that claimed that crap.

        4. Denialists always get the science wrong.

        And even if they get near something, that could be legitimately called science (e.g. the saturation bands or the cosmic ray influence) they either draw the wrong conclusions (...the bands are not saturated  in the higher, colder atmosphere, so that more CO2 will still have an effect) or they exaggerate the effect (...while cosmic rays may influence clouds, no discernible effect has been measured).

        As I said - take the big brush and primary colors and make big strokes ... provided you can afford it in the given situation ;-)

        Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away. -- Philip K. Dick

        by RandomGuyFromGermany on Sun Dec 30, 2012 at 11:35:40 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site