I'm going to have to work "They can use the metric system!" into a conversation sometime in the near future. It's at least as good an argument as the crocks I'm rebutting.
That's how to talk to doubters if you just want to piss them off. But it won't persuade anybody. It not very likely to persuade anybody uncommitted either.
I'm getting pretty tired of this sort of tribal war chant from both sides.
That's how to talk to doubters if you just want to piss them off. But it won't persuade anybody. It not very likely to persuade anybody uncommitted either. This appears to be a variant of the "if only people were nicer and more polite, you might convince the doubters" fallacy. As far as I can tell, all that does is give the doubters an opportunity to ignore/doubt someone who is trying to explain their error. Doesn't appear to be particularly successful. Making the doubters look like idiots, though, may encourage some to appear less stupid.
Victor - People used to study rhetoric, the science of persuasion. I have spent some time in the belly of the beast, arguing with skeptics, so I have some idea what does NOT work. I don't claim to be an expert on what does.
TTP - 99.8% of people have no clue as to the science of AGW. 100 % of the people understand you perfectly when you call them an idiot. You do the math.
TLE - Since you like tribal war chants, let me just say that your droll attempt to mobilize the "concern troll" meme/cliche is really witty and clever. Too bad you don't have a f***** clue where I'm coming from.
Using social media, I think it works pretty well to reply to deniers publicly, with neutral language, including a reference link. Goal here is simply to educate other readers, not to convince the other party. I learned this approach on Usenet, oh, maybe 25 years ago.
There are a few reasons why Black is not the spokesman you want. For one, he is an obnoxious jerk, or more precisely, a comedian whose persona is obnoxious jerk.
A second is that he is a loud mouthed idiot who doesn't know what he is talking about, and hence is easily refuted. 96% of scientists blah blah blah. Any skeptic can pull out surveys showing that large percentages of "scientists", even of meteorologists are unconvinced.
Once you get through explaining that the 96% are the people with genuine relevant expertise, you've set yourself up for another put down like: "oh, you mean that the people who make their living studying climate think that it's really important that it be studied.
Sorry Eli - as a spokesman, Lewis Black just makes a really ugly cheerleader.
100 % of the people understand you perfectly when you call them an idiot. You do the math. Why don't you tell me what one should call a group of non-experts who choose to ignore the advice of the vast majority of actual experts?
CIP says "Sorry Eli - as a spokesman, Lewis Black just makes a really ugly cheerleader."
I agree.
And CIP, people like Elifritz (and some others who post here, BBD, for example) assume that simply because you don't agree with Eli on something you are a climate change denying troll.
You're a concern troll, wherever you're "coming from." Maybe you want a spokesman, but some of us just want a comedian! It makes us laugh when faux-skeptics who reject the lopsided consensus of the experts get their smug ignorance shoved in their faces. Louis Black FTW!
"...the concern troll's message is: "I have some concerns about your methods. If you did these things to make your message less effective, it would be more effective."..."
I'm sure neither Black nor most of the rest of us expect him to be taken seriously as a spokesperson for communicating climate change.
There's a meta-joke here, though: the annoyance over Black expressed by climate revanchists. To the extent a rhetorical shot goes home there's a corresponding sound of splintering ego, something quite audible in the spluttering over Black.
aTTP and dbostrom - Eli's title is about how to talk to deniers. My comment was to ask what your purpose was. Black may play well in your echo chamber, but if you try his stuff *to (Eli's preposition you might recall) an actual skeptic, you might provoke a fist fight.
The guys who have developed climate science and proven that humans are driving climate change have done outstanding work. I can't say the same about the job their fanboys have done persuading the public that something needs to be done about it.
We, if we hope to actually accomplish something, need to get a hell of a lot smarter if we actually hope to slow carbon emissions.
aTTP - Why don't you tell me what one should call a group of non-experts who choose to ignore the advice of the vast majority of actual experts?
On the off chance that you are referring to the people who have failed so miserably at convincing the public that climate change needs action - but persist in the same dim tactics that have been proven not to work.
I would tell you what I call them privately, but I don't want to piss them off, so let's just go with "learning skill challenged.
Let me try to explain my point again, before I get distracted. It's been proven that the tribal warfare approach to selling action against climate change doesn't work. It may give the true believers a chuckle or a warm feeling of solidarity, but it doesn't persuade.
The following ABC article describes the well known facts: http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/climate-change-evolution-disagree/story?id=26939619
CIP, My comment was to ask what your purpose was. And my point was that "my purpose" is not to try and convince "deniers" that they're mistaken. If you think that is a goal, then you're wrong. People who are genuinely skeptical, sure, but not those who've already made up their mind. Similarly the C in CAGW is your own construct.
On the off chance that you are referring to the people who have failed so miserably at convincing the public that climate change needs action - but persist in the same dim tactics that have been proven not to work. Sure, but that's probably partly a consequence of those who know little about science (think Anthony Watts, Matt Ridley, for example) who are willing to make claims about climate science that are wrong (or selective) but that make it easier for us to decide that we shouldn't do much now. If those who think there is a risk worth considering wish to remain honest and decent, it's hard to know how to counter this mis-information.
Let me try to explain my point again, before I get distracted. It's been proven that the tribal warfare approach to selling action against climate change doesn't work. It may give the true believers a chuckle or a warm feeling of solidarity, but it doesn't persuade. You seem to be under the mistaken impression that climate action requires convincing "deniers". I disagree. We largely live in democracies. Therefore, policy doesn't require everyone's agreement, it simply requires the agreement of a majority. Given that deniers are unconvinceable, convincing people that denying the evidence is stupid may well be more effective that trying to actually convince dyed-in-the-wool deniers.
My original comment was addressed to Eli, who had written on "how to talk to a skeptic." I guess you and he think Lewis Black is funny, but I usually just find him annoying. I predicted the results. I stand by my prediction.
I have no idea what the acronymn CAGW means - and I didn't use it.
If you think we are winning the battle against climate skepticism, I suggest you look at recent electoral results.
Fifteen years ago there was a fairly broad consensus in the US that AGW needed action. Republicans and Democrats mostly agreed. Then it became an issue of tribal warfare, and the consensus collapsed. You, Eli, TLE and some others seem to think that more vehement tribal war cries will help. I don't.
CIP, I have no idea what the acronymn CAGW means - and I didn't use it. True, it wasn't you, it was someone else. I got confused by your response to me.
If you think we are winning the battle against climate skepticism, I suggest you look at recent electoral results. No, I don't really think we're winning. My point was simply that if you think that dyed-in-the-wool deniers need to be convinced, then I think you're wrong. I don't think it's possible. Convincing others that it is stupid to deny climate science, however, might be effective.
FWIW, Lewis Black is quite a bit blunter than I would be and some of his rhetoric is somewhat more extreme than I personally like. That doesn't mean that he isn't saying what I would sometimes quite like to say myself, even if I do choose not to.
You, Eli, TLE and some others seem to think that more vehement tribal war cries will help. I don't. I don't know if it will help and it's certainly not my preferred strategy. I'm unconvinced that anything else works either, though.
First explain to your denier(s) that dealing with climate change is a issue at the heart of 1) "the culture of life" 2) "personal responsibility" 3) "family values"
If he/she/they remain intransigent, then gleefully apply the Louis Black technique.
Eli's title is "How to Talk to Someone Who Denies People Are Driving Climate Change", not "How to Convince Someone Who Denies People Are Driving Climate Change". Didn't your own experience find the latter a fool's errand?
I'm kinda busy with weekend activities, but I wanted to give you a realistic insight. I'm trying to figure out how to get through to individuals who don't realize that renewables are impractical at this time. So I offer you an article to read and let me know how you take it. Maybe we can cooperate...you work on your side and I'll work on mine. Then after we are finished we can have a thnkfest tour figure out how to send human DNA to other habitable planets.
Fernando, Maybe you should also read this one. It presents a similar but what appears to be a somewhat more balanced perspective. It's also written by the two Google engineers.
... and a journalist writing in El Reg, which has an abysmal record for partiality and misrepresentation when it comes to the climate policy / energy debate.
And CIP, people like Elifritz (and some others who post here, BBD, for example) assume that simply because you don't agree with Eli on something you are a climate change denying troll.
You troll. You are unpleasant. The odds of you being a denier seem high.
As I mentioned to you earlier, you are treated exactly as you deserve. If this upsets you, then modify your behaviour.
A persistent misrepresentation of yours needs addressing. I don't do this 'for Eli'. Eli can look after himself. I do it because you troll comments here and it irritates *me*.
Slipping whiney little digs at me into your comments will only ensure that I kick your arse harder next time.
If Louis Black gets one deniar to shut-up, we are ahead. I do not care if LB actually convinced the deniar or not. If LB pushes one denier to silence, I cheer.
Academic Climate Science is too reticent to call a spade a spade. When governments edited out the honest language on the dangerous effects of AGW in AR5, Scientists that actually understand the situation should have taken out their Bowie knives and fought for truth and honor.
Attp, I read the original paper and I don't perceive any difference. The two Google authors are a bit behind the ball in some areas. For example, they don't realize we are running out of fossil fuels. The forthcoming scarcity will drive prices up. Another issue arises when they take that old Hansen model and start despairing because we can't stay below 350 ppm. 350 ppm is sheer lunacy. A 620 ppm limit is achievable. And maybe we can reduce it with geoengineering. But that requires a lot of research. Or society can keep singing praises to Obama for making empty agreements with our chinese friends?
Fernando, I think the two articles presented slightly different perspectives of the situation. Yours suggested renewables will never work, rah rah nuclear. The one I posted suggested that renewables cannot compete in our current market, which is not quite the same as suggesting that they'll never work. Admittedly, the latter did suggest that we needed something new, but that was still in a scenario where coal can produce energy at 4c per kWh and hence in which we ignore externalities.
I can bring You some news. In the most northern sea port in the province of Groningen, The Netherlands, Google will build a huge data center. That location has direct access to data transmission cables around the atlantic, has plenty of room, plenty of workforce and new build gas and coal fired utility plants and a large windturbine park. So it is the mix of energy options which is important. And this is the future.
Are you telling me that July is more dangerous than January?
Are you telling me that a July 3 °C hotter than an average July is more dangerous than an average July?
Because if that's what you're telling me, you're smarter than I thought you were.
Since you like tribal war chants, let me just say that your droll attempt to mobilize the "concern troll" meme/cliche is really witty and clever. Too bad you don't have a f***** clue where I'm coming from.
Oh dear, you swore. I am now concerned that people will not like you.
You frequently mention geoengineering which suggests a moderately optimistic view technological development. Yet at the same time, you are relentlessly pessimistic about the technological development of renewables.
Neven - Well I really will be sad if you dislike me, because I really admire your work and blog and read it regularly. The posts and comments are among the best anywhere.
No, I won't dislike you because of some curse words, I can look through that. I'm just concerned that the majority is put off and then won't listen to your arguments.
AT: "the GLOBAL average temperature is more than 3C higher in July than it is in January."
Well, shave my beard and call me normal. I get a 1.6 degree C difference between DJF and JJA, using GISS data. Counter-intuitive but true, albeit irrelevant. Not so surprising, at that. Trolls will often use some isolated factoid to prop up their AGW denial.
AT: "The reasons are well understood, but it's a good reminder how irrelevant the measure of global average temperature is to climate."
No, it's not. For reasons well understood by climate scientists, if not by trolls, it's the secular trend in global average temperature that's relevant. Can't plot the trend without measuring global average temperature, ya know.
AT: "The fantasies that some protect about disaster with slow warming are rather akin to primitive superstitions of the past."
In other words, "I don't believe it will affect me very much, and if it doesn't affect me personally, it's not a disaster." FIFY.
Fair enough, given recent Supreme Court decisions like "Citizens vs. United" there is a strong and regrettable streak of plutocracy in the US.
However, that's not absolute, grassroots public opinion still has some influence. And my point still stands, that mockery of denier arguments 'with no clothes' can be a very effective message to onlookers.
"And my point still stands, that mockery of denier arguments 'with no clothes' can be a very effective message to onlookers."
Yes it has been very effective to date, since you have fewer people agreeing with the consensus than 10 years ago, oh wait.
It has been very effective, the party that over champions climate change just lost big, very effective. And now please standby as the "CapitalistImperialistPig" commenting takes over RR, again. Soon to followed by anti-military rants I am sure.
Funny, how rabbets here claim to be very much smarter than deniers and yet they are losing the public opinion. Outsmarted by lying dumb deniers. Yes please continue your attack tactics.
"Yes it has been very effective to date, since you have fewer people agreeing with the consensus than 10 years ago, oh wait."
Fallacious, just like "we've got more CO2 now and it's not warmer so CO2 doesn't influence climate". The alleged inference would only be true if it were the influencing factor that dominates the sum of all others.
The same applies to your next sentence.
"Outsmarted by lying dumb deniers."
See if you can work out for yourself why that claim does not accord with the evidence.
aTTP, "Why don't you tell me what one should call a group of non-experts who choose to ignore the advice of the vast majority of actual experts?"
Why don't you do the math? Call them what they are. Idiots.
Now I wouldn't like to suggest that CIP has any other point. There is no persuasion possible so give it up, do the math: KNOW that only confrontation will teach and shove that fact everywhere sun shines or will not shine. We want a Sandy 2.0 at 890 hPa, et cetera et ffing cetera. A most moral wish too.
And I do not deny that you are a gutless tribal lemming that would never admit to any fault for yourself or anyone on "your team".
I am trying to deny the laws of physics? Really? Where? Since we have moved the conversation into make up whatever one wants, you are an advocate of moving people you label as "denier" to camps.
You need look no further than the left for stupid, no accountability, lying, fake caring,and weak willed power hungry trolls being led by the worst President in US history. Democrats did do one thing you will enjoy in the future, use reconciliation in the Senate for any bill the Reps want to get past a filibuster, and the next Republican President can pick and choose which laws and legislation to enforce. Idiots.
Why did you stop reading there, 'Lucifer'? Is it because you must create strawmen to f#ck for want of whatever?
If you read on, you'd have seen I didn't stop there. Hell, no. I added: ... et cetera et ffing cetera.
For a good repeat with dividend of the Long Island Express, just wait: now's the better time, of course.
But Sandy 2.0, well that was something else. Can't have that in the 1930's, see, because back then there used to Arctic Sea ice even around Baffin. That's changing now. So Sandy is the only system in the entire f#cking Atlantic hurricane record to make that beautiful left turn. It will not remain the only one (in fact that year two systems made a likewise strange track, one of them was called Nemo).
Back in the 1930's Sandy could not have become the worlds most energetic system on record. Because it was cooler then. Because e.g. the Gulf Stream wasn't record hot up to considerable depth, then.
Wishing you the Sandy 2.0 and ha ha when it's there. A moral wish, too, u see, because Sandy 2.0 in 20 years would be 870 hPa, u see.
"I am obviously a fellow denier and smarter than you."
...indeed, provided that by "obviously", you mean "most likely incorrect based on the evidence at hand".
While we're at it, I note that you never addressed the fallacies you were called out on, let alone provided evidence to demonstrate the other claim. Is this the evidence of your superior smartness we should rely upon?
"so you disagree that the tactics (exampled by Black) have not been used for years? Are you denying the existence of RR itself?"
I never agreed or disagreed with either of those claims. A person of superior intelligence who is not in denial would be able to figure that out, and indeed would grok why the point I made does not rest on either of those claims.
So now Loth is retracting the claim that I have fallacies to answer for. Will you make up your mind to what you are trying to get at. Your squirrel "oh look a nut" gets tiresome and now boring, like you.
FWIW what exactly am I in denial about? Just because Loth says does not mean it to be. Funny how you all run the same program and subroutines. "denier, denier, we're smarter, we're smarter, denier, big oil, big oil, denier."
Over and over and over again, and yet public opinion polls (which politicians are bound by) are showing less and less support for your position. Keep up the good work.
"So now Loth is retracting the claim that I have fallacies to answer for. "
Good grief, you really are not only not smart, but quite thick (or you have difficulties in basic English comprehension, perhaps because it's not your native language).
If you were merely half as smart as you think you are, then you would be able to figure out that claim is wrong (and that you have not addressed the fallacies that I pointed out earlier).
Heck, if you were half as smart as you think you are you wouldn't have relied on those fallacies in the first place.
But please - don't stop digging on my account! It's providing such wonderful insights!
UPDATE: The spambots got clever so the verification is back. Apologies
Some of the regulars here are having trouble telling the anonymice apart. Please add some distinguishing name to your comment such as Mickey, Minnie, Mighty, or Fred.
I'm going to have to work "They can use the metric system!" into a conversation sometime in the near future. It's at least as good an argument as the crocks I'm rebutting.
ReplyDeleteThat's how to talk to doubters if you just want to piss them off. But it won't persuade anybody. It not very likely to persuade anybody uncommitted either.
ReplyDeleteI'm getting pretty tired of this sort of tribal war chant from both sides.
I'm getting pretty tired of this sort of tribal war chant from both sides.
ReplyDeleteYou are very concerned. I see you expressing your grave concern for this kind of rhetoric on internet blog comment forums. I get that.
You are concerned. Your kumbaya is getting buzzkilled. I'm concerned.
That's how to talk to doubters if you just want to piss them off. But it won't persuade anybody. It not very likely to persuade anybody uncommitted either.
ReplyDeleteThis appears to be a variant of the "if only people were nicer and more polite, you might convince the doubters" fallacy. As far as I can tell, all that does is give the doubters an opportunity to ignore/doubt someone who is trying to explain their error. Doesn't appear to be particularly successful. Making the doubters look like idiots, though, may encourage some to appear less stupid.
It not very likely to persuade anybody uncommitted either.
ReplyDeleteIt is a pity that similar sentences are typically used without giving an alternative.
Victor - People used to study rhetoric, the science of persuasion. I have spent some time in the belly of the beast, arguing with skeptics, so I have some idea what does NOT work. I don't claim to be an expert on what does.
ReplyDeleteTTP - 99.8% of people have no clue as to the science of AGW. 100 % of the people understand you perfectly when you call them an idiot. You do the math.
TLE - Since you like tribal war chants, let me just say that your droll attempt to mobilize the "concern troll" meme/cliche is really witty and clever. Too bad you don't have a f***** clue where I'm coming from.
Using social media, I think it works pretty well to reply to deniers publicly, with neutral language, including a reference link. Goal here is simply to educate other readers, not to convince the other party. I learned this approach on Usenet, oh, maybe 25 years ago.
ReplyDeleteThere are a few reasons why Black is not the spokesman you want. For one, he is an obnoxious jerk, or more precisely, a comedian whose persona is obnoxious jerk.
ReplyDeleteA second is that he is a loud mouthed idiot who doesn't know what he is talking about, and hence is easily refuted. 96% of scientists blah blah blah. Any skeptic can pull out surveys showing that large percentages of "scientists", even of meteorologists are unconvinced.
Once you get through explaining that the 96% are the people with genuine relevant expertise, you've set yourself up for another put down like: "oh, you mean that the people who make their living studying climate think that it's really important that it be studied.
Sorry Eli - as a spokesman, Lewis Black just makes a really ugly cheerleader.
100 % of the people understand you perfectly when you call them an idiot. You do the math.
ReplyDeleteWhy don't you tell me what one should call a group of non-experts who choose to ignore the advice of the vast majority of actual experts?
The CAGW'ers have been using this tactic for years, look at the success they have experienced with it. Oh wait....
ReplyDeletelol
And yet another perfect example of defining insanity.
1
The CAGW'ers have been using this tactic for years, look at the success they have experienced with it.
ReplyDeleteTwo fallacies in a single sentence. Impressive!
CIP says "Sorry Eli - as a spokesman, Lewis Black just makes a really ugly cheerleader."
ReplyDeleteI agree.
And CIP, people like Elifritz (and some others who post here, BBD, for example) assume that simply because you don't agree with Eli on something you are a climate change denying troll.
These folks play the role of Eli's junk yard dog.
CapitalistImperialistPig: "There are a few reasons why Black is not the spokesman you want. "
ReplyDeleteYou're a concern troll, wherever you're "coming from." Maybe you want a spokesman, but some of us just want a comedian! It makes us laugh when faux-skeptics who reject the lopsided consensus of the experts get their smug ignorance shoved in their faces. Louis Black FTW!
RationalWiki: Concern troll
ReplyDelete"...the concern troll's message is: "I have some concerns about your methods. If you did these things to make your message less effective, it would be more effective."..."
You guys are just clueless idiots if you think CIP is a "concern troll"
ReplyDeleteEli knows he is not.
Where is Eli?
I'm sure neither Black nor most of the rest of us expect him to be taken seriously as a spokesperson for communicating climate change.
ReplyDeleteThere's a meta-joke here, though: the annoyance over Black expressed by climate revanchists. To the extent a rhetorical shot goes home there's a corresponding sound of splintering ego, something quite audible in the spluttering over Black.
And if I had mention you by name it could have been three.
ReplyDeleteAny luck selling CAGW in Buffalo this week?
1
Urban Dictionary has eight definitions for "concern troll": http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=concern+troll
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure which one TLE and Mal have in mind for me, but I'm inclined to think that #8 might be the operative one here:
A phrase of absolutely no meaning, used by bloggers to shut down debate on their sites.
Those who can't stand cant are often the first to fall in the war gainst cliche'.
ReplyDeleteaTTP and dbostrom - Eli's title is about how to talk to deniers. My comment was to ask what your purpose was. Black may play well in your echo chamber, but if you try his stuff *to (Eli's preposition you might recall) an actual skeptic, you might provoke a fist fight.
ReplyDeleteThe guys who have developed climate science and proven that humans are driving climate change have done outstanding work. I can't say the same about the job their fanboys have done persuading the public that something needs to be done about it.
We, if we hope to actually accomplish something, need to get a hell of a lot smarter if we actually hope to slow carbon emissions.
Wow, quoting the urban dictionary.
ReplyDeleteThat has got to be a new record.
This might actually be relevant and useful:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.accountability-central.com/nc/single-view-default/article/important-you-have-a-chance-to-save-your-kids-and-grandkids-from-even-greater-debt/
aTTP - Why don't you tell me what one should call a group of non-experts who choose to ignore the advice of the vast majority of actual experts?
ReplyDeleteOn the off chance that you are referring to the people who have failed so miserably at convincing the public that climate change needs action - but persist in the same dim tactics that have been proven not to work.
I would tell you what I call them privately, but I don't want to piss them off, so let's just go with "learning skill challenged.
Let me try to explain my point again, before I get distracted. It's been proven that the tribal warfare approach to selling action against climate change doesn't work. It may give the true believers a chuckle or a warm feeling of solidarity, but it doesn't persuade.
ReplyDeleteThe following ABC article describes the well known facts: http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/climate-change-evolution-disagree/story?id=26939619
CIP,
ReplyDeleteMy comment was to ask what your purpose was.
And my point was that "my purpose" is not to try and convince "deniers" that they're mistaken. If you think that is a goal, then you're wrong. People who are genuinely skeptical, sure, but not those who've already made up their mind. Similarly the C in CAGW is your own construct.
On the off chance that you are referring to the people who have failed so miserably at convincing the public that climate change needs action - but persist in the same dim tactics that have been proven not to work.
Sure, but that's probably partly a consequence of those who know little about science (think Anthony Watts, Matt Ridley, for example) who are willing to make claims about climate science that are wrong (or selective) but that make it easier for us to decide that we shouldn't do much now. If those who think there is a risk worth considering wish to remain honest and decent, it's hard to know how to counter this mis-information.
Let me try to explain my point again, before I get distracted. It's been proven that the tribal warfare approach to selling action against climate change doesn't work. It may give the true believers a chuckle or a warm feeling of solidarity, but it doesn't persuade.
You seem to be under the mistaken impression that climate action requires convincing "deniers". I disagree. We largely live in democracies. Therefore, policy doesn't require everyone's agreement, it simply requires the agreement of a majority. Given that deniers are unconvinceable, convincing people that denying the evidence is stupid may well be more effective that trying to actually convince dyed-in-the-wool deniers.
ATTP,
ReplyDeleteMy original comment was addressed to Eli, who had written on "how to talk to a skeptic." I guess you and he think Lewis Black is funny, but I usually just find him annoying. I predicted the results. I stand by my prediction.
I have no idea what the acronymn CAGW means - and I didn't use it.
If you think we are winning the battle against climate skepticism, I suggest you look at recent electoral results.
Fifteen years ago there was a fairly broad consensus in the US that AGW needed action. Republicans and Democrats mostly agreed. Then it became an issue of tribal warfare, and the consensus collapsed. You, Eli, TLE and some others seem to think that more vehement tribal war cries will help. I don't.
CIP,
ReplyDeleteI have no idea what the acronymn CAGW means - and I didn't use it.
True, it wasn't you, it was someone else. I got confused by your response to me.
If you think we are winning the battle against climate skepticism, I suggest you look at recent electoral results.
No, I don't really think we're winning. My point was simply that if you think that dyed-in-the-wool deniers need to be convinced, then I think you're wrong. I don't think it's possible. Convincing others that it is stupid to deny climate science, however, might be effective.
FWIW, Lewis Black is quite a bit blunter than I would be and some of his rhetoric is somewhat more extreme than I personally like. That doesn't mean that he isn't saying what I would sometimes quite like to say myself, even if I do choose not to.
You, Eli, TLE and some others seem to think that more vehement tribal war cries will help. I don't.
I don't know if it will help and it's certainly not my preferred strategy. I'm unconvinced that anything else works either, though.
First explain to your denier(s) that dealing with climate change is a issue at the heart of
ReplyDelete1) "the culture of life"
2) "personal responsibility"
3) "family values"
If he/she/they remain intransigent, then gleefully apply the Louis Black technique.
John Puma
CIP,
ReplyDeleteEli's title is "How to Talk to Someone Who Denies People Are Driving Climate Change", not "How to Convince Someone Who Denies People Are Driving Climate Change". Didn't your own experience find the latter a fool's errand?
I'm kinda busy with weekend activities, but I wanted to give you a realistic insight. I'm trying to figure out how to get through to individuals who don't realize that renewables are impractical at this time. So I offer you an article to read and let me know how you take it. Maybe we can cooperate...you work on your side and I'll work on mine. Then after we are finished we can have a thnkfest tour figure out how to send human DNA to other habitable planets.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/11/21/renewable_energy_simply_wont_work_google_renewables_engineers/
The title
Renewable energy 'simply WON'T WORK': Top Google engineers
Windmills, solar, tidal - all a 'false hope', say Stanford PhDs
Fernando,
ReplyDeleteMaybe you should also read this one. It presents a similar but what appears to be a somewhat more balanced perspective. It's also written by the two Google engineers.
http://spectrum.ieee.org/energy/renewables/what-it-would-really-take-to-reverse-climate-change
Actually, ATTP, your link is to the original written by the two engineers, whereas Fernando's link is to the interpretation of a journalist.
ReplyDelete... and a journalist writing in El Reg, which has an abysmal record for partiality and misrepresentation when it comes to the climate policy / energy debate.
ReplyDeleteIt's coverage is aimed at people like Fernando.
Dear Anon.
ReplyDeleteAnd CIP, people like Elifritz (and some others who post here, BBD, for example) assume that simply because you don't agree with Eli on something you are a climate change denying troll.
You troll. You are unpleasant. The odds of you being a denier seem high.
As I mentioned to you earlier, you are treated exactly as you deserve. If this upsets you, then modify your behaviour.
A persistent misrepresentation of yours needs addressing. I don't do this 'for Eli'. Eli can look after himself. I do it because you troll comments here and it irritates *me*.
Slipping whiney little digs at me into your comments will only ensure that I kick your arse harder next time.
Hmmm...
ReplyDeleteBlack's open is appeal to authority.
Punctuated with F bombs.
Not particularly intelligent.
Satan
If Louis Black gets one deniar to shut-up, we are ahead. I do not care if LB actually convinced the deniar or not. If LB pushes one denier to silence, I cheer.
ReplyDeleteAcademic Climate Science is too reticent to call a spade a spade. When governments edited out the honest language on the dangerous effects of AGW in AR5, Scientists that actually understand the situation should have taken out their Bowie knives and fought for truth and honor.
Attp, I read the original paper and I don't perceive any difference. The two Google authors are a bit behind the ball in some areas. For example, they don't realize we are running out of fossil fuels. The forthcoming scarcity will drive prices up. Another issue arises when they take that old Hansen model and start despairing because we can't stay below 350 ppm. 350 ppm is sheer lunacy. A 620 ppm limit is achievable. And maybe we can reduce it with geoengineering. But that requires a lot of research. Or society can keep singing praises to Obama for making empty agreements with our chinese friends?
ReplyDeletethe dangerous effects of AGW
ReplyDeleteThis is the delusion.
Global average temperature varies by more than by more than 3C annually.
Are you telling me that July is more dangerous than January?
Fernando,
ReplyDeleteI think the two articles presented slightly different perspectives of the situation. Yours suggested renewables will never work, rah rah nuclear. The one I posted suggested that renewables cannot compete in our current market, which is not quite the same as suggesting that they'll never work. Admittedly, the latter did suggest that we needed something new, but that was still in a scenario where coal can produce energy at 4c per kWh and hence in which we ignore externalities.
I can bring You some news. In the most northern sea port in the province of Groningen, The Netherlands, Google will build a huge data center. That location has direct access to data transmission cables around the atlantic, has plenty of room, plenty of workforce and new build gas and coal fired utility plants and a large windturbine park. So it is the mix of energy options which is important. And this is the future.
ReplyDeletePieter
Are you telling me that July is more dangerous than January?
ReplyDeleteAre you telling me that a July 3 °C hotter than an average July is more dangerous than an average July?
Because if that's what you're telling me, you're smarter than I thought you were.
Since you like tribal war chants, let me just say that your droll attempt to mobilize the "concern troll" meme/cliche is really witty and clever. Too bad you don't have a f***** clue where I'm coming from.
Oh dear, you swore. I am now concerned that people will not like you.
:-D
^ Hell, where does that leave me?
ReplyDelete:-)
* * *
@Fernando
You frequently mention geoengineering which suggests a moderately optimistic view technological development. Yet at the same time, you are relentlessly pessimistic about the technological development of renewables.
This is illogical.
Anonymous Troll: "Global average temperature varies by more than by more than 3C annually."
ReplyDeleteJeez, do you even read what you're posting?
Mal Adapted, Neven,
ReplyDeletethe GLOBAL average temperature is more than 3C higher in July than it is in January.
The reasons are well understood, but it's a good reminder how irrelevant the measure of global average temperature is to climate.
The fantasies that some protect about disaster with slow warming are rather akin to primitive superstitions of the past.
Deniers won't be convinced, but if anyone else is listening sarcasm and mockery _are_ effective methods of pointing out that the denier is pushing BS.
ReplyDeleteAs ATTP noted, in a democracy what is most influential is the opinion of the majority, no matter what the fringe loons think.
Neven - Well I really will be sad if you dislike me, because I really admire your work and blog and read it regularly. The posts and comments are among the best anywhere.
ReplyDeleteNo, I won't dislike you because of some curse words, I can look through that. I'm just concerned that the majority is put off and then won't listen to your arguments.
ReplyDeleteThere is no point arguing with deniers, a point ATTP has finally learned.
ReplyDeleteDoubters are not deniers, a mistake that the PIG is making.
Having punched the Pig's buttons, allow Eli to say he is an old and respected companion in these matters and others.
ReplyDeleteAT: "the GLOBAL average temperature is more than 3C higher in July than it is in January."
ReplyDeleteWell, shave my beard and call me normal. I get a 1.6 degree C difference between DJF and JJA, using GISS data. Counter-intuitive but true, albeit irrelevant. Not so surprising, at that. Trolls will often use some isolated factoid to prop up their AGW denial.
AT: "The reasons are well understood, but it's a good reminder how irrelevant the measure of global average temperature is to climate."
No, it's not. For reasons well understood by climate scientists, if not by trolls, it's the secular trend in global average temperature that's relevant. Can't plot the trend without measuring global average temperature, ya know.
AT: "The fantasies that some protect about disaster with slow warming are rather akin to primitive superstitions of the past."
In other words, "I don't believe it will affect me very much, and if it doesn't affect me personally, it's not a disaster." FIFY.
For reasons well understood by climate scientists, if not by trolls, it's the secular trend in global average temperature that's relevant.
ReplyDeleteRelevant how?
When I look through CDC mortality statistics, I notice two things
1. Human health appears to be improving over the period coincident with the last half century's warming.
2. Weather and climate related mortality don't appear because they are statistically insignificant causes of death.
Wild eyed hysteria about slow warming may make some feel pious, but it is irrational.
BBD
ReplyDeleteYou obviously enjoy being Eli's junk yard dog.
in a democracy what is most influential is the opinion of the majority, no matter what the fringe loons think.
ReplyDeleteThat may be, but America is not a democracy, unless you mean "one dollar one vote"
AT: "Wild eyed hysteria about slow warming may make some feel pious, but it is irrational."
ReplyDeleteShorter AT: What, me worry?
@Anon - "one dollar one vote"
ReplyDeleteFair enough, given recent Supreme Court decisions like "Citizens vs. United" there is a strong and regrettable streak of plutocracy in the US.
However, that's not absolute, grassroots public opinion still has some influence. And my point still stands, that mockery of denier arguments 'with no clothes' can be a very effective message to onlookers.
allow Eli to say he is an old and respected companion in these matters and others.
ReplyDeleteIn that case allow me to apologize to CapitalistImperialistPig for thinking he was concern trolling.
"And my point still stands, that mockery of denier arguments 'with no clothes' can be a very effective message to onlookers."
ReplyDeleteYes it has been very effective to date, since you have fewer people agreeing with the consensus than 10 years ago, oh wait.
It has been very effective, the party that over champions climate change just lost big, very effective.
And now please standby as the "CapitalistImperialistPig" commenting takes over RR, again. Soon to followed by anti-military rants I am sure.
Funny, how rabbets here claim to be very much smarter than deniers and yet they are losing the public opinion. Outsmarted by lying dumb deniers. Yes please continue your attack tactics.
1
"Yes it has been very effective to date, since you have fewer people agreeing with the consensus than 10 years ago, oh wait."
ReplyDeleteFallacious, just like "we've got more CO2 now and it's not warmer so CO2 doesn't influence climate". The alleged inference would only be true if it were the influencing factor that dominates the sum of all others.
The same applies to your next sentence.
"Outsmarted by lying dumb deniers."
See if you can work out for yourself why that claim does not accord with the evidence.
Better concerned commenters, please.
Outsmarted by lying dumb deniers.
ReplyDeleteOnly part of this statement is correct.
aTTP, "Why don't you tell me what one should call a group of non-experts who choose to ignore the advice of the vast majority of actual experts?"
ReplyDeleteWhy don't you do the math? Call them what they are. Idiots.
Now I wouldn't like to suggest that CIP has any other point. There is no persuasion possible so give it up, do the math: KNOW that only confrontation will teach and shove that fact everywhere sun shines or will not shine.
We want a Sandy 2.0 at 890 hPa, et cetera et ffing cetera. A most moral wish too.
We want a Sandy 2.0.
ReplyDeleteWhy stop there?
You could get a 'Long Island Express', but you might have to cool global temperatures back to the 1930s levels to do it.
Lucifer
Loth and BBD are deniers.
ReplyDelete1
Dear Anon.
ReplyDeleteI do not deny that deniers are intellectually dishonest and frequently thick.
If you think belligerent stupidity will counter the laws of physics, you have only made my point for me.
If you think that transient gains by the stupid and dishonest right will counter the laws of physics, you have again made my point for me.
BBD,
ReplyDeleteAnd I do not deny that you are a gutless tribal lemming that would never admit to any fault for yourself or anyone on "your team".
I am trying to deny the laws of physics? Really? Where? Since we have moved the conversation into make up whatever one wants, you are an advocate of moving people you label as "denier" to camps.
You need look no further than the left for stupid, no accountability, lying, fake caring,and weak willed power hungry trolls being led by the worst President in US history. Democrats did do one thing you will enjoy in the future, use reconciliation in the Senate for any bill the Reps want to get past a filibuster, and the next Republican President can pick and choose which laws and legislation to enforce. Idiots.
1
"Loth and BBD are deniers."
ReplyDeleteSo now you're implying that we're dumb, and yet smart enough to outsmart you?
Not sure you thought that one through. ;-)
"Why stop there?" asks 'Lucifer'.
ReplyDeleteWhy did you stop reading there, 'Lucifer'? Is it because you must create strawmen to f#ck for want of whatever?
If you read on, you'd have seen I didn't stop there. Hell, no. I added: ... et cetera et ffing cetera.
For a good repeat with dividend of the Long Island Express, just wait: now's the better time, of course.
But Sandy 2.0, well that was something else. Can't have that in the 1930's, see, because back then there used to Arctic Sea ice even around Baffin. That's changing now. So Sandy is the only system in the entire f#cking Atlantic hurricane record to make that beautiful left turn. It will not remain the only one (in fact that year two systems made a likewise strange track, one of them was called Nemo).
Back in the 1930's Sandy could not have become the worlds most energetic system on record. Because it was cooler then. Because e.g. the Gulf Stream wasn't record hot up to considerable depth, then.
Wishing you the Sandy 2.0 and ha ha when it's there.
A moral wish, too, u see, because Sandy 2.0 in 20 years would be 870 hPa, u see.
Loth,
ReplyDeleteI am obviously a fellow denier and smarter than you.
Not sure you thought that one through.
1
"I am obviously a fellow denier and smarter than you."
ReplyDelete...indeed, provided that by "obviously", you mean "most likely incorrect based on the evidence at hand".
While we're at it, I note that you never addressed the fallacies you were called out on, let alone provided evidence to demonstrate the other claim. Is this the evidence of your superior smartness we should rely upon?
Loth,
ReplyDeleteso you disagree that the tactics (exampled by Black) have not been used for years? Are you denying the existence of RR itself?
Do I need to pull polling data for you from 2004 and 2014 on the issue of man made climate change?
Fallacies my ass. You are a denier.
1
"so you disagree that the tactics (exampled by Black) have not been used for years? Are you denying the existence of RR itself?"
ReplyDeleteI never agreed or disagreed with either of those claims. A person of superior intelligence who is not in denial would be able to figure that out, and indeed would grok why the point I made does not rest on either of those claims.
You are clearly not that person.
So now Loth is retracting the claim that I have fallacies to answer for. Will you make up your mind to what you are trying to get at. Your squirrel "oh look a nut" gets tiresome and now boring, like you.
ReplyDeleteFWIW what exactly am I in denial about? Just because Loth says does not mean it to be. Funny how you all run the same program and subroutines. "denier, denier, we're smarter, we're smarter, denier, big oil, big oil, denier."
Over and over and over again, and yet public opinion polls (which politicians are bound by) are showing less and less support for your position. Keep up the good work.
Happy Thanksgiving
1
1
"So now Loth is retracting the claim that I have fallacies to answer for. "
ReplyDeleteGood grief, you really are not only not smart, but quite thick (or you have difficulties in basic English comprehension, perhaps because it's not your native language).
Either way I did no such thing.
Loth,
ReplyDeleteEither way you did. In summary, if Eli states it you will agree with it. That is all we need to know about you.
1
Anonymous said... "I am obviously a fellow denier and smarter than you."
ReplyDeleteAh, the D-K effect is strong in this one.
Rob,
ReplyDeleteComing from you does not mean much. Still misunderstanding what libel means for a public figure?
1
That is all we need to know about you.
ReplyDeleteWho is 'we' again? Your local cult chapter? Are you the Grand Marshall?
Please, refresh my memory.
Dear 1,
ReplyDeleteHere's a fallacy:
> Coming from you does not mean much.
You're welcome.
Oh, and I wonder why you're talking about squirrels the way you do. Are you sock puppeting, by any chance?
Many thanks!
W
"Either way you did."
ReplyDeleteIf you were merely half as smart as you think you are, then you would be able to figure out that claim is wrong (and that you have not addressed the fallacies that I pointed out earlier).
Heck, if you were half as smart as you think you are you wouldn't have relied on those fallacies in the first place.
But please - don't stop digging on my account! It's providing such wonderful insights!
An honorable advice at Lucia’s:
ReplyDelete> adopt a sock puppet and mis paraphrase the text he wont show, then challenge him to prove you wrong by quoting the text.
http://rankexploits.com/musings/2014/open-thread/#comment-133078
Not a sock puppet. I have answered the "fallacies". Please continue your Lewis Black strategy, very effective.
ReplyDelete1
Thank you for your response and for your concerns, One.
ReplyDeleteDo you have any empirical evidence relating the "Lewis Black strategy" and public opinion polls showing less support (about what?) than ten years ago?
Many thanks!