How exactly do you debate someone like this?

[blackhole123]

Debating global warming, their arguments basically boil down to this:

 

- There is no proof for global warming.

- Any scientist who believes in global warming is just being bullied into it

- Most peer reviewed papers have made up data in them, because scientists just want more funding

 

Every time I post a counterargument I am simply amazed at their skill to totally ignore and twist things.

 

This seems to be the bane of my existence; do you argue with these types of people knowing that their ignorance will never go away, or do you just accept that you can't change their mind even though it grinds your gears to even think about it?

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

There is no way to argue against people who will immediately declare any evidence you present to be fabricated. The only way you can feasibly win is to turn the tables and force them to prove their accusations of a climate-science conspiracy.

[bascule]

Yeah, turning the tables is a good strategy.

 

I would ask them if they have the requisite knowledge of climate science needed to make such assertions.

[Dudde]

While they both have excellent suggestions, definitely keep in mind that minds who refute evidence with no inkling to provide any will probably not take the time to respond in any intellectual manner whatsoever. At best it should be legible.

[swansont]

Every time I post a counterargument I am simply amazed at their skill to totally ignore and twist things.

 

You can't use facts and logic to persuade someone to change their mind, when they did not use facts and logic to make it up in the first place. Every one of those stances has an analog in creationism/intelligent design vs evolution. The scenario is "decide what you want to be true, and shape the argument accordingly," which is antiscience (i.e. the opposite of science). Then you find credulous supporters who will repeat your arguments without critical examination of the facts or the logic.

 

The bottom line is that can't debate them. They have decided to not argue according to the rules of civil debate.

[melanie tan]

Global warming proof is the climate change, after all the disaster experienced here in the Philippines just like typhoon Ondoy which destroyed and killed lots of people. The only reason is that people does not take care of our environment which leads to climate change.

[D H]

Careful! One freak weather event does not provide evidence for or against global warming. Use that argument and you open the door to counterclaims of an abnormally low number of Atlantic hurricanes, a very cold October in the US, or the earliest snowfall in Houston on record. Those are not valid arguments against global warming; nor is typhoon Ondoy is not a valid argument in support of global warming. Global warming is the change in the climate over the span of a decade or more.

[JohnB]

Blackhole, AFAIK, nobody disputes the world has warmed. Nobody in their right mind would dispute that this in general has been a good thing.

 

(If it hadn't warmed over the last 100 years we would still be in the "Little Ice Age" and I presume that nobody would consider this "good".)

 

The debate is not so much "Has the Earth warmed?" but rather "Has the Earth warmed unusually?" and if so, "How much is attributable to man?"

 

Number 1 is why paleoclimate reconstructions come in for such a hammering, as they are the only method we have to compare modern climate changes with those in the past. Without such comparisons, how can say what is or is not "unusual"? Temp rise from 1900-1940 is generally thought to have been "natural", yet is on a par with the 1970-2000 period. Was 1900-1940 "unusual" as well?

 

Number 2 deals with attribution. How big is the "A" in "AGW"? This is another area where debate occurs.

[iNow]

Number 1 is why paleoclimate reconstructions come in for such a hammering, as they are the only method we have to compare modern climate changes with those in the past. Without such comparisons, how can say what is or is not "unusual"? Temp rise from 1900-1940 is generally thought to have been "natural", yet is on a par with the 1970-2000 period. Was 1900-1940 "unusual" as well?

 

FYI, this has been addressed.

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?p=530801#post530801

[adan]

In my mind that Global Every one of those stances has an analog in creationism/intelligent design vs evolution. The scenario is "decide what you want to be true, and shape the argument.

[blackhole123]

Blackhole, AFAIK, nobody disputes the world has warmed.]/quote]

 

Try telling that to this guy. Despite my posting many scientific articles and studies about the temperature record he maintains that any data that shows data is due to either:

 

A. Bullying of scientists which causes them to make up data

B. Urban heat islands, even though I have posted many articles that deal with this supposed problem.

 

Its very hard talking to a person like this. It's like I have a compulsion to respond to idiocy, and I feel like it validates that idiocy in some way if I stop. So I keep wasting my time responding to their idiotic claims.

[jake.com]

 

Try telling that to this guy. Despite my posting many scientific articles and studies about the temperature record he maintains that any data that shows data is due to either:

 

A. Bullying of scientists which causes them to make up data

B. Urban heat islands, even though I have posted many articles that deal with this supposed problem.

 

Its very hard talking to a person like this. It's like I have a compulsion to respond to idiocy, and I feel like it validates that idiocy in some way if I stop. So I keep wasting my time responding to their idiotic claims.

 

keep your cool and force them to explain themselves. its the same arguement i use to argue with religious fanatics. without evidence, there is no arguement.

 

A. Bullying of scientists which causes them to make up data :

with this arguement, ask them simply "who created the theory then? If everyone was bullied into it, how did it come about in the first place?"

 

B. Urban heat islands, even though I have posted many articles that deal with this supposed problem. :

idk what this is, so i can't argue for or against it.

[timo]

It's like I have a compulsion to respond to idiocy, and I feel like it validates that idiocy in some way if I stop. So I keep wasting my time responding to their idiotic claims.

If people you consider idiots feel that what you consider idiotic points are validated by that: so what?

 

If you bother about other people reading the debate: Just imagine that those people are intellectually capable of forming their own opinion, irrespective of who had the last word.

[jake.com]

If you bother about other people reading the debate: Just imagine that those people are intellectually capable of forming their own opinion, irrespective of who had the last word.

 

its easier to change someones opinion if they know the subject matter. Arguing with an ignorant person is frusterating, since they don't know enough about the subject to form a legitimate arguement.

[JohnB]

FYI, this has been addressed.

Interesting paper. It says "submitted", do you know if it was accepted? (Not nit picking, I was just wondering) I'll have to give it a really good read.

 

A few of points come to mind.

1) The paper is referring to the Arctic SST anomaly, when the warming was worldwide. (Look at the GISS graphs.) How does this explain the warmth of the 1930-1940 period in the US?

 

2) What do you make of Figure 3A? It shows sea ice declining from 1950- 1985 and then rising again? If correct, then the post 2000 reductions have yet to get as low as the 1960s. This doesn't seem right to me. Thoughts?

 

3) The mechanism outlined is interesting and does agree with comments made about the record 2007 sea ice loss. (As in that unusual wind patterns were the cause.)

 

4) The paper notes.

However, it requires that the climate models are capable of reproducing characteristic internal patterns of the climate system. If models underestimate such fluctuations, observed patterns outside the range of such models could then incorrectly be subscribed to external forcing. Alternatively, if models overestimate internal low-frequency fluctuations the opposite will hold. It seems that for present models neither of these alternatives can be excluded.

(Emphasis mine.)

Which is one of my concerns re the infallibility of models. It's nice to know that it's not just me.

 

Blackhole. There are extremists on both sides of the debate. On the "sceptic" side there are those like you've encountered, on the "alarmist" side there are those who believe sea level will rise 100 ft by 2100. The trick is to not lump everybody together.

 

In a similar way, just because someone believes in a higher power does not mean that they are a creationist, yet they are often treated as such.

 

BTW, who is "this guy" you speak of?

[blackhole123]

A poster at some other forums I frequent.

 

Here is his "scientific" response to this article (http://www.esnips.com/doc/a64c537c-356c-4ce7-b403-a4db06721ff9/Parker.JClim.2006), which I posted along with an IPCC report that referenced it.

 

 

I have no reason to believe anything that IPCC says. they are crock and sham just like the guy in charge of it. I see you ignored the article again.

 

No one should believe anything come out of the IPCC. It isn't science it is an independant power grab. the only science they are pushing is the one that lines their pockets with more carbon credit deals.

 

I didn't look at another article on the same thing because i figured it was just a carbon trading company that got caught doing something. I had no idea that the chairman of the IPCC was in on it.

 

did you know that the the guy in charge of the IPCC helped develop technology so that oil companies could get the last bit of oil out of reserves that they couldn't before?

 

ol yea by the way the guy in charge of the IPCC and that speared that 2007 report isn't a scientist. so he has 0 credibility on anything that he authorizes, and you make the claims that the sources i use aren't science. ol the hypocrasy is amazing.

Edited December 21, 2009 by blackhole123

[NeedfulThings]

You can't reason with unreasonable people. Thus, they are "unreasonable".

So, I agree with Cap'n. Eventually, they will probably get so frustrated with your arguement strategy that they will stomp off in a huff of desperation. Which basically means that you've won.

[jake.com]

You can't reason with unreasonable people. Thus, they are "unreasonable".

So, I agree with Cap'n. Eventually, they will probably get so frustrated with your arguement strategy that they will stomp off in a huff of desperation. Which basically means that you've won.

 

It's not about winning. It's about changing opinions:cool:

[CaptainPanic]

Basically, if the other side isn't listening to arguments, then it is not a "debate"... it's a campaign.

 

Watch advertisements to see how to do that. I believe you're best off to study logical fallacies, and make sure that you can hide them so that the other person isn't aware you use them. You can also attempt to achieve a higher volume (shouting louder) to make your point.

[JohnB]

blackhole, you can't argue with that sort of idiot and it is a waste of time trying.

 

I'm familiar with Parker 2005. There are later papers that refute the extremely low value for the UHI and if your opponent had any valid points he might have referenced them.

 

His complaint is political rather than scientific and should be understood on that level. The point you should consider is that his political complaint is quite valid. A recent Telegraph article lists many of Dr. Pachauris commercial connections.

 

There is often much made of "big oil" funding sceptics (I've never got a cent, so if the cheques are rolling, send me one:D) yet very little concern about funding the other way. This bothers me.

 

The head of the IPCC is also head of an organisation that is funded by TATA, his policy recommendations as head of the IPCC will make TATA an awful lot of money. Are we sceptics the only ones who can say "conflict of interest"?

 

The simple fact is that any complaint that sceptics were "getting paid" is now invalid re the IPCC because it is quite obvious that the IPCC is also "getting paid". (Certainly the IPCC Chairman is, but as the linked article points out, we can't find out exactly how well.)

 

The above doesn't change any of the scientific arguments, but it does cast a very big shadow over any policy or political statements that the IPCC puts out.

 

Exxon/Mobol may have funded sceptic think tanks etc to the tune of some $60 million (or however much) over the last 10 years, but that is nothing compared to the 1.5B Euros or so that TATA expects in the next 5. In politics, follow the money.