Trump's Denial of Climate Change

[CharonY]

If Trump's side is really supported by less than 1% of climate experts, then state that in the debate and how are Trump's non-experts going to counter argue?

 

"I may not be a climate expert, but I am a smart person and I deny climate change."

 

They cannot, they lose the debate.

 

 

That is not how they spread the anti-climate change propaganda. Basically they are using the playbook that has been around at least since the tobacco industry hid the link between smoking and cancer and has been perfected since then.

Roughly tactics are employed that (off the top of my head, I am certainly missing the finer points):

- raise uncertainty that are intuitive. Ideally based on actual data but ignores the actual context:" we always had climate changing, We even had an ice age, and that was certainly not caused by humans!"

- create controversy "climategate"

- criticize data, or of if that is not possible criticize those that collected data: "scientists are liberal shills!"

- as a corollary create an anti-intellectual atmosphere ("those elites!") to be possible to dismiss any data and research finding that runs counter to what one would like. (incidentally this is pursued heavily by the Republicans, which turned off quite and marginalized a few Republican scientists and intellectuals)

- discredit arguments on an emotional level ("they are just fearmongering")

- raise fear: "it is a ploy by foreign powers to cripple our industry", make it as personal as possible "your liberties will be infringed and you will lose your job"

 

Taken all together it is a strong emotional argument that is specifically designed to target data (by discrediting it and those who analyze them), make it impossible to raise counter-arguments (as those people doing research are obviously biased and lying) and present it as a simple personal choice ("look, maybe something is happening but what can you do? However, if you do these things that those elites want you to do all your jobs will move to China").

 

If you want to stay on the factual side of things you simply won't win, as you only got one weapon (data/research) whereas the opposing side has everything else.

Edited December 2, 2016 by CharonY

[swansont]

If Trump's side is really supported by less than 1% of climate experts, then state that in the debate and how are Trump's non-experts going to counter argue?

 

"I may not be a climate expert, but I am a smart person and I deny climate change."

 

They cannot, they lose the debate.

 

So, they lose the debate. That didn't matter. People ignore or reject facts when they're inconvenient. You're assuming people are going to be rational.

[Phi for All]

Trump has already indicated it is an "even battle". The media is generally in agreement with climate change and I think most educated people and celebrities are also. There could be a Climate Change Concert. So should we just give up and allow Trump's stance to define the USA?

 

Right, the Big TV Debate is a bad idea, so we give up.

 

The point is, there is no debate. It's like the Intelligent Design vs public school science "debate". There is none. It's been manufactured by spin doctors and stabbed into the American psyche that there's any questions about it at all. A responsible, informative media would simply point to the mountains of evidence vs the opinions of profiteers and conclude that There. Is. No. Debate.

 

Agreeing to one is a yuge admission that this is open to question.

[Ten oz]

 

Right, the Big TV Debate is a bad idea, so we give up.

 

The point is, there is no debate. It's like the Intelligent Design vs public school science "debate". There is none. It's been manufactured by spin doctors and stabbed into the American psyche that there's any questions about it at all. A responsible, informative media would simply point to the mountains of evidence vs the opinions of profiteers and conclude that There. Is. No. Debate.

 

Agreeing to one is a yuge admission that this is open to question.

Right, staging a debate only validates the notion that there is a debate to be had. There isn't.

[waitforufo]

Right, staging a debate only validates the notion that there is a debate to be had. There isn't.

I agree. Few people are concerned a about climate change so why try to convince them otherwise.

 

http://www.gallup.com/poll/167843/climate-change-not-top-worry.aspx

[Phi for All]

I agree. Few people are concerned a about climate change so why try to convince them otherwise.

 

http://www.gallup.com/poll/167843/climate-change-not-top-worry.aspx

 

But in context, we were referring to experts and, you know, people smarter than you "few people".

[Ten oz]

I agree. Few people are concerned a about climate change so why try to convince them otherwise.

 

http://www.gallup.com/poll/167843/climate-change-not-top-worry.aspx

I don't believe deabte is the proper plat form for "convincing" people. Debates, especially televised ones, are media spectacles. Science is a matter of education. People need to learn but in order to do that successfully they must be willing to learn and not combative.

 

News media broadly has become very debate oriented. Panels of pundits are assembled vlley back and forth over topics. It is great entertainment but I do not feel it educates people on the issues. Hearing the pros and cons of something lacks meaning when there is no initial baseline for that information.

[waitforufo]

I don't believe deabte is the proper plat form for "convincing" people. Debates, especially televised ones, are media spectacles. Science is a matter of education. People need to learn but in order to do that successfully they must be willing to learn and not combative.

 

News media broadly has become very debate oriented. Panels of pundits are assembled vlley back and forth over topics. It is great entertainment but I do not feel it educates people on the issues. Hearing the pros and cons of something lacks meaning when there is no initial baseline for that information.

Well, the people are not convinced. So how do you propose to educate them? The movie "An Inconvenient Truth" is now 10 years old. That didn't increase concern. Leonardo Dicapriois striking out. The public views warming alarmists as cowards for not debating. Climate is at the bottom of the public's concern and has been for years. The nation just voted in a president who repeatedly called climate change a hoax and who is focused on expanding fossil fuel development. So global warming, climate change, climate disruption, or what ever new catchy term they are calling it today is failing to gain traction. So again, how will you convince the people?

[Ken Fabian]

Saying all politicians lie benefits those who lie the most. While the sentiment is accepted broadly by society I do not personally believe it to be true. Politicians constantly accuse each other of misleading and being deceptive which muddies the waters for everyone. Yet most of the time when a politician fails to deliver on a propose policy it is due to opposition and not insincerity.

 

Whether it's dodging significant questions they would prefer not to answer - and on climate that's what our conservative Australian politicians do as standard - or those diverting accusations that shift the focus away, being misleading and deceptive is a significant political skill. It doesn't benefit those who lie the most, but those who lie - or fail to tell the truth - selectively and intelligently. For climate that can be building perceptions of it being of low significance, or low priority or that it is more difficult and economically damaging to address (using alarmist economic fear) than it actually is. I suppose sometimes they believe their own BS - ie they are failing the great trust and responsibility of their office by failing to be well informed and give proper consideration of expert advice.

 

Few people are concerned a about climate change so why try to convince them otherwise.

 

Ordinary citizen may have a kind of right to remain uninformed or misinformed but those who hold offices of trust, responsibility and power ordinarily do not. Politicians appear to have considerable immunity from being held legally accountable when harms arise that they could or should have been aware of - and they failed to give credence to in their decisions. They are not usually held legally accountable, rather, they are accountable to public opinion via election processes; but public opinion is mutable, influenced in ways that can have little relationship to the best available expert advice on any particular issue. News service are not strongly bound either and can and do present biased, misleading and deceptive information, often engaging in the influencing of public opinion in partisan rather than impartial ways. Politicians both reflect and influence public opinion; to seek to mislead and misinform the public about an ongoing issue the expert advice is consistent in saying is profoundly important to long term prosperity and security is, in my opinion, a very serious breach of trust. Whether they do so knowingly or because they have failed to - or are incapable of - comprehending the abundant advice available they are letting us all down by preventing the preventative measures the climate problem - which is effectively irreversible - from being addressed effectively.

[Prometheus]

So again, how will you convince the people?

 

How do we convince people of any science? Lay people do not generally debate which science is true. There is no debate about the existence of exoplanets: the evidence is there. Why is climate science any different?

[waitforufo]

 

How do we convince people of any science? Lay people do not generally debate which science is true. There is no debate about the existence of exoplanets: the evidence is there. Why is climate science any different?

Its different because climate alarmists want to completely restructure our economy, dramatically increase the cost of energy to the consumer, reduce or eliminate many enjoyable activities currently dependent on fossil fuels, etc. Succeeding in those goals will take a lot of convincing. Exoplanets are interesting and expand our knowledge of nature, but have no impact on anyone's life.

[Prometheus]

Its different because climate alarmists want to completely restructure our economy, dramatically increase the cost of energy to the consumer, reduce or eliminate many enjoyable activities currently dependent on fossil fuels, etc. Succeeding in those goals will take a lot of convincing. Exoplanets are interesting and expand our knowledge of nature, but have no impact on anyone's life.

 

Sure, a political debate need ensue from the science. But the science should be determined by evidence, not debate.

[waitforufo]

 

Sure, a political debate need ensue from the science. But the science should be determined by evidence, not debate.

Fine, but your burden of proof is much higher for climate change than it is for exoplanets. The money spent to reduce CO2 emissions is money not spent elsewhere and the costs are huge. The cost to find exoplanets is trivial by comparison, and if the evidence for new exoplanets is proven false, few care and no one's life is impacted.

[Phi for All]

Well, the people are not convinced. So how do you propose to educate them? The movie "An Inconvenient Truth" is now 10 years old. That didn't increase concern.

The hardest part is combatting ignorance like yours. An Inconvenient Truth had a tremendous impact on concern as well as the environment. Our situation was predicted to be much worse by now without its impact. Deniers are ignorant, or they have an agenda. I haven't met any other kind.

[Prometheus]

Fine, but your burden of proof is much higher for climate change than it is for exoplanets. The money spent to reduce CO2 emissions is money not spent elsewhere and the costs are huge. The cost to find exoplanets is trivial by comparison, and if the evidence for new exoplanets is proven false, few care and no one's life is impacted.

 

That is a double-edged sword. One can argue with equal validity that the costs of not acting to reduce emissions are so severe that the burden of proof should be reduced.

 

Which of these two alternatives one adopts depends largely on political bias. Let the evidence attend to itself and leave aside political bias.

[StringJunky]

I

 

The hardest part is combatting ignorance like yours. An Inconvenient Truth had a tremendous impact on concern as well as the environment. Our situation was predicted to be much worse by now without its impact. Deniers are ignorant, or they have an agenda. I haven't met any other kind.

I don't think he is ignorant I think he is in denial because of the costs; he's been coming here too long not to know the evidence.

Edited December 2, 2016 by StringJunky

[waitforufo]

The hardest part is combatting ignorance like yours. An Inconvenient Truth had a tremendous impact on concern as well as the environment. Our situation was predicted to be much worse by now without its impact. Deniers are ignorant, or they have an agenda. I haven't met any other kind.

Forget about me. Polls have shown for years that the people put climate change at the bottom of their list of concerns. If you want change, climate activist have to increase that concern. Currently they are failing. With regard to the tremendous impact of Al Gore's movie, I have my doubts. In my opinion, our recent and long economic recession, plus the impact of the switch to cheap natural gas from fracking has been the source of the tremendous impact you mention.

 

 

That is a double-edged sword. One can argue with equal validity that the costs of not acting to reduce emissions are so severe that the burden of proof should be reduced.

 

Which of these two alternatives one adopts depends largely on political bias. Let the evidence attend to itself and leave aside political bias.

I don't think noble cause corruption will reduce climate alarmist's burden of proof.

Edited December 2, 2016 by waitforufo

[swansont]

Its different because climate alarmists want to completely restructure our economy, dramatically increase the cost of energy to the consumer, reduce or eliminate many enjoyable activities currently dependent on fossil fuels, etc. Succeeding in those goals will take a lot of convincing. Exoplanets are interesting and expand our knowledge of nature, but have no impact on anyone's life.

 

Bullshit, bullshit, and bullshit. That's the same fact-free propaganda that we're all too familiar with from Trump.

[waitforufo]

Bullshit, bullshit, and bullshit. That's the same fact-free propaganda that we're all too familiar with from Trump.

Great scientific comeback.

 

Where are you going to get all the free power infrastructure to replace fossil fuels? Where are you going to get all the free replacements for gas and diesel cars, trucks, motorcycles, boats, airplanes, snowmobiles, etc. How are you going to get environmentalists to agree to build more nuke plants, dams, power grids, solar farms, and windmills? Even RFK Jr. doesn't want to look at them.

 

Again, you keep making this personal. What part of "you are failing to convince the public" don't you get.

[swansont]

I agree. Few people are concerned a about climate change so why try to convince them otherwise.

 

http://www.gallup.com/poll/167843/climate-change-not-top-worry.aspx

Few? Half the country said they were worried, in 2014. It's even higher now. Almost two-thirds.

 

http://www.gallup.com/poll/190010/concern-global-warming-eight-year-high.aspx

[Prometheus]

I don't think noble cause corruption will reduce climate alarmist's burden of proof.

 

That was my point; it shouldn't reduce the burden of proof. Just as the cost of acting shouldn't increase the burden of proof. Let the evidence speak for itself.

[swansont]

Great scientific comeback.

There was no science to rebut. Only bullshit.

 

Where are you going to get all the free power infrastructure to replace fossil fuels? Where are you going to get all the free replacements for gas and diesel cars, trucks, motorcycles, boats, airplanes, snowmobiles, etc. How are you going to get environmentalists to agree to build more nuke plants, dams, power grids, solar farms, and windmills? Even RFK Jr. doesn't want to look at them.

 

More BS. Why does the infrastructure or vehicles have to be free? You place an artifcial constraint on the situation. It's intellectually dishonest. Certainly you are aware that people normally buy cars, right? They aren't free.

 

People have been building solar and wind at a record pace. Why do I have to get them to do something they're already doing? A new power grid isn't an added requirement.

 

Just more factless propaganda.

 

Again, you keep making this personal. What part of "you are failing to convince the public" don't you get.

 

I find your fact-free posting style insulting. I'm not trying to convince the public. I'm trying to get you to engage in a factual discussion for a change.

[Phi for All]

I don't think he is ignorant I think he is in denial because of the costs; he's been coming here too long not to know the evidence.

 

That implies a dishonesty I don't feel capable of judging over the web.

 

I think waitforufo is ignorant because he makes things up without checking, things that he wants to believe are true, and the fact that he truly believes them shows it's not denial. It's laziness, and he's put down intellectuals for so many years he thinks smart is stupid. Shaking up the Etch-a-Sketch in his head by insisting on facts is the only honest way I know how approach such a serious subject, but it's not very effective when the ignorance is so willful.

 

I don't know, maybe we need to take this down a few notches. Perhaps a TV game show like Truth or Trump?, or Wheel of Extinction, or Family Water Feud? Denial by the masses has been carefully orchestrated over a long time, but I don't think we'll have as long to reverse it. Now, doubly so.

[Ten oz]

Great scientific comeback.

 

Where are you going to get all the free power infrastructure to replace fossil fuels? Where are you going to get all the free replacements for gas and diesel cars, trucks, motorcycles, boats, airplanes, snowmobiles, etc. How are you going to get environmentalists to agree to build more nuke plants, dams, power grids, solar farms, and windmills? Even RFK Jr. doesn't want to look at them.

 

Again, you keep making this personal. What part of "you are failing to convince the public" don't you get.

You are asking multiple unrelated questions and treating each as something required for climate change to be proved. It is the same disjointed logic conservative use when arguing evolution. Rather than staying on topic and discussing biology and mutation they jump around and demand answers about the big bang which is a totally different field of study all together. You are asking how we "convince" people, challanging political positions, and demanding posters to elaborate on energy alternatives. It all isn't the same.

 

A scientist who studies climate is not burden with proving energy alternatives are cheaper than oil. Climate change is happening whether the cost of oil is $100 per barrel or $20 per barrel. The science, the costs associated with doing nothing, current energy prices, and potential energy alternatives, and etc are all separate issues that each require different answers, solutions, and approaches.

 

People remain unconvinced, of course. We live in a world where millions believe an evil supernatural spirit is [ersonally involved for all bad things on earth. People believe in ghosts, the lochness monster, and that humans have never actually been to moon. Who is responsible for "convincing" these people otherwise? Should NASA's top brass hold televised debates over whether or not we actually made it to the moon?

[StringJunky]

 

That implies a dishonesty I don't feel capable of judging over the web.

 

I think waitforufo is ignorant because he makes things up without checking, things that he wants to believe are true

Calling him ignorant is judging.

 

And that's not denial?

Edited December 3, 2016 by StringJunky