The cake is a lie.

Why would you dismiss the warnings of people who's job is to study reality.

Top Fucking Kek I think you could be on to somethink here...

Your know I think I better look in to some more stuff I think I may have been suffering from comformation bias.

As someone who believes that Global Warming is a problem and needs to be countered I've got to say; this in your face "Anyone who disagrees with us is an idiot!" attitude isn't going to help anything. Do you honestly think that anyone who doesn't believe in climate change is going to be swayed by someone screaming in their face about how "stupid and shitty" their views are? Grow up and approach the topic with some civility, or else you'll never persuade anyone.

(I chose not to name anyone in specific, but you know who you are)

Why people do not seem to be concerned at all about Climate Changes ?

Just because they don`t seem to be it, doesn`t mean they aren`t. Besides that, I see more and more 'green' stuff on the market. It is making its way slowly and steadily. Thats how it seems to me.

Year 2015 is very very alarming and everyone should be worried.

Why is 2015 more alarming than other years are?

if you are really worried about climate change then convince you congressmen to side with nuclear energy. it's the only energy that is reliable and can feed all us energy hunger americans

You should mention that it is the only reliable "green" energie source right now. Solar panels and windturbines are becoming better and better everyday. Combine that with bio-energy and they`ll be able to feed all you hungry americans ;). It will take a bit of time before it can though, as they don`t work well enough yet. Now the question is, would you rather continue like we do now for lets say 20 years and then switch to bio-energie. Or would you rather switch to nuclearenergy now and switch to bio-energie later? Cause a lot of people aren`t in favour of nuclearenergy either.

when 90%+ of scientists in the relevent field all over the world agree on something, it would be extremely stupid to deny what they are saying.

I wouldn`t say stupid.... You can deny everything if you can come up with good facts and statistics. On this argument I have to say that if you read the facts of both sides neither of them comes out dominant. There seems to be so much going on, so much debate. To me it doesn`t seem like we accually know whats causing global warming, but we are just assuming the worst scenario (which isn`t a bad thing)

i won't bother reading the book of a politician on a subject like climate change

Yeah I understand, shame that a lot of people don`t seem to care wether or not the person is a scientist. Al Gore is the biggest example on the other side of the argument.

While America is a big contributor, we should also look at other countries, such as China.

Problem with america is that they don`t seem as willing to change as other big contributors

Money talks and there is no money or economic development to be made by these country's

125ch209`s answer to this is pretty good. I feel like I should mention that more people want to have 'green'stuff. As the market for environmentfriendly stuff grows, so does the money that goes into it.

http://m.phys.org/news/2013-04-world-energy-dirty-years-iea.html

While the article is two years old it still talks about how each unit of energy has not got any cleaner in the past decades.

I will admit right now that I`m not an expect and that my answer to this will just be out of the top of my head. China, India and Africa are all upcoming economies. That means that they will start to use more and more oil and pump more and more carbon into the air. Whilst in Europe and America the renewable energy might be improving its impact won`t be visible because there is a much bigger group that is undoing its effects.

http://dailycaller.com/2015/06/04/satellite-data-shows-no-global-warming-for-nearly-19-years/

Global warming has stopped for 15-20 year's.

The article speaks of purposly changed statistics. I have read of this before, accually way to much. I doubt it doesn`t happen. That doesn`t mean that the world isn`t warming up though, just at a slower rate than we thought (which makes man-made global warming less likely).

As for the "pause" in global warming, Lord Christopher Monckton is a well known disinformer and has been debunked many times. Here is an example: [uTwpcPWN9cEmk9FU=http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2010/09/21/206763/lord-monckton-debunked-climate-scientists/

]http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2010/09/21/206763/lord-monckton-debunked-climate-scientists/[/quote][/uTwpcPWN9cEmk9FU]
I think this article makes the problems between both sides clear. I agree with most they say. As for the summary of “the authoritative scientific statements in each of these nine areas” I don`t know about statement number 1.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming

There's quite a few that don't agree and any figures like the 96% one are very misleading.

This link shows a graph that tells me that about 90% of all scientists do agree with it.

The earth climate has always change thought it's existence I fail to see who any change now is not part of that cycle.

The speed at which it is happening is what makes scientists think it is not part of that, normally incredibly slow, cycle

The last one (Powell 2013) is very telling. Out of 13,950 published research on global warming and climate change in peer reviewed scientific journals, between 1991 and 2012, only 24 rejected anthropogenic global warming (caused by humans).

On the other hand there have been scientist at the IPCC who haven`t agreed with multiple articles, yet their names where on it as well. Just because a name is on it doesn`t mean the scientist automaticly agree with it. Although this is pretty overwhelming, the numbers are probably not exactly like this. (not that there will be any major changes)

@125ch209: You do realise that the NASAclimatechange graph is exaggerated right?

This one is a bit closer to the truth.

As someone who believes that Global Warming is a problem and needs to be countered I've got to say; this in your face "Anyone who disagrees with us is an idiot!" attitude isn't going to help anything. Do you honestly think that anyone who doesn't believe in climate change is going to be swayed by someone screaming in their face about how "stupid and shitty" their views are? Grow up and approach the topic with some civility, or else you'll never persuade anyone.

(I chose not to name anyone in specific, but you know who you are)

Was going to say something alike, but

Feel free to completely destroy me it is good to be proven wrong one learns better from making an ass out of them self and them being corrected.

I Think sources of Wind and Solar are great, and we should have some, but the thing is what happens when it's not windy today or it's super cloudy, which is why i suggested nuclear energy. also while people are looking towards "green" energy a lot of people can't afford it.

I forgot to ask, but i'm interested in the "why" you think climate change is not caused by humans?

Although I`m personally not certain which side is true (I am sure neither side has it 100% right at this moment) my biggest problem is that a lot of studies show a correlation between the activity of the sun and changes in CO2 levels. And according to most of those studies the current rise of CO2 levels is just following the rise of sun activity a couple of hundred years ago

This graph comes from one of those studies:

Why would you dismiss the warnings of people who's job is to study reality.

Sometimes it is like that, sometimes (for example the IPCC) their job is to proof something. If you have to proof A, you are going to search for evidence for it and your interpretations of results might be biased.

And considering the terrible consequences we are facing why would you chose to do nothing just in case you are wrong?

This is why it is better to go 'green'. Whether it is true or not doesn`t matter. If it isn`t true then our change doesn`t really matter as much. If it is true then we did good. It seems like a scenario where the change can`t really cause losses for humankind.
On the other hand, what are the terrible consequences you are speaking of? Animals that stop to excist? Sea level rising? Cause all of that has happened before as well. Earth will adapt to it. In the history of our planet this really doesn`t mean that much. For us as humans it is bad, but it doesn`t mean the end of the world.

Denying anthropogenic climate change is *exactly* as stupid and arrogant

Once again I don`t see how denying something is stupid. Arrogant? I also fail to see that one. It seems more arrogant to think that we are able to change the climate and it isn`t cause by that massive star that has influenced life for as long as it exists.

Global warming is a lie

Global warming isn`t. Its just a question if it is another nature event or if it is man made.

The cake is a lie

The cake is always a lie

I've got to say; this in your face "Anyone who disagrees with us is an idiot!" attitude isn't going to help anything.

In fact that attitude makes you look stupid. I never liked people who can`t understand that not everybody believes everything. Whether or not they are right is a different story, but they aren`t idiots. You always need to be open for the other side or you`ll start to be biased. You`ll always need to question the arguments made by your side as well. Mostly the people who say "Anyone who disagrees with us is an idiot!" are not doing that. Therefore they are just as biased as the people that disagree. People need to learn to think for themselves. Ofcourse if you have thought about the arguments of both sides and have questions the statement and you still believe in your side, then good for you! At least you know what you are talking about and you are open to critics about it.

That said, 123ch209, props to you for the way you are arguing. You seem to have read your fair share of publications and you have asked Luna what exaclty his/her problems where.

As someone who believes that Global Warming is a problem and needs to be countered I've got to say; this in your face "Anyone who disagrees with us is an idiot!" attitude isn't going to help anything. Do you honestly think that anyone who doesn't believe in climate change is going to be swayed by someone screaming in their face about how "stupid and shitty" their views are? Grow up and approach the topic with some civility, or else you'll never persuade anyone.

(I chose not to name anyone in specific, but you know who you are)

Yes, I know who I am, and yes, it does work. Not necessarily directly on the person being addressed, *but* -- when you can back up your claims about stupid shitty beliefs with evidence, as I did with the links provided -- then it just so happens that some people on the sidelines tend to see that the frustration with stupid and shitty beliefs is justified.

And I don't say "Anyone who disagrees with us is an idiot", I talk about the beliefs and actions of people, not the people themselves. (Unless it's a fuckwit like Nigel Lawson, who's not even a member of this forum, so I have no reason to be kind to him.)

There are many ways to influence public perceptions. Sometimes calling a spade a spade is a very effective way of pointing out that the Emperor is naked. To mix a couple of metaphors.

Sometimes what you call 'civility' can give unwarranted credence to stupid and shitty beliefs. It's a rather situation-dependent and person-dependent question as to which conversational strategies will be effective.

Question for you: Are you a creationist? If not, do you see how believing in creationism is stupid and shitty? (If you are, then I can at least understand why you might also be a climate denialist. But then there's a whole slew of other questions that follow...) [Edit: Apologies, I may have misread your statement about global warming. At first I thought it was ambiguous, now I'm not sure. So, to clarify I'll ask, do you go by the scientific consensus that GW is anthropogenic?]

Edited 10/31/2015 20:29:26

On this argument I have to say that if you read the facts of both sides neither of them comes out dominant. There seems to be so much going on, so much debate. To me it doesn`t seem like we accually know whats causing global warming, but we are just assuming the worst scenario (which isn`t a bad thing)

There are no 'sides' to facts. Facts are facts. What you have is not two sides with different facts, what you have is two sides with differing views on how to evaluate *evidence* of facts. One side is the side whose job it is to understand how to evaluate evidence reliably and effectively (scientists), and the other side is the side who *don't* understand how to evaluate evidence reliably and effectively (climate denialists, cf. creationists aka evolution denialists).

'Debate', on its own, is not a sign of scientific controversy. The debate on climate in the public sphere is *political* and ideological, not scientific.

And the warming is caused by CO2 (and the relatively enormous increase in CO2 is caused by human activity). Read some of the links that have been provided earlier. The scientific evidence is overwhelmingly clear. It requires stupid and shitty prior beliefs to actively deny it.

@Min34

On this argument I have to say that if you read the facts of both sides neither of them comes out dominant. There seems to be so much going on, so much debate.

This is simply not true, when 99%+ scientists studying climate agree that climate change is real and anthropogenic, there is no debate. Not among scientists anyway. It usually is a pretty good indication that the facts are massively supporting climate change. The only "debate" going on is among politicians, because a lot of money is at stake, and some people don't want to piss off the big oil corporations who are pouring out millions of dollars to support climate change deniers.

You do realise that the NASAclimatechange graph is exaggerated right?

Ahaha really? What do you mean exactly? You think NASA is lying about the data? Keep in mind, the NASA graph shows the RECORDED data for temperatures since we began recording it (1880), and the source for the datas is certainly not all owned by NASA (since NASA was created in 1958). And you think NASA is lying about it? Why? You think all the scientists at NASA are in on a big conspiracy? And have kept it secret all this time? Come on...

And then you pull out a graph out of nowhere showing the temperature for the last 400,000 years, wich is completely beside the point (i.e the claim that the temperatures have been steady for the last 20 years) and can't remotely be compared with NASA's graph, since they show datas from complete different time frames. And on top of that, you just post the graph without even giving your source. So i'm supposed to take your word for it?

And according to most of those studies the current rise of CO2 levels is just following the rise of sun activity a couple of hundred years ago

This is not true at all. Every study shows that the concentration of C02 level is off the chart, (probably the highest in the last 800,000 years). Look at the graph from NASA. From the beginning of the industrial revolution to today, it went from 280ppm to 400+ppm, and increasing every year (we can measure that).

Your graph, from "one of those study", isn't even related to the discussion here. You did not give your source so i can't be sure, but it is pretty clear that those datas are about the variation of Co2 and temperature for the past 20,000 years, not including the recent 200 years (or even 2000 years, since the datas stop at 0), wich is the very time frame we are interested in (when we started releasing massive amount of C02 into the atmosphere, aka since the industrial revolution).
If you want to post graphs, the least you could do is give the source of your graph, because all of this is clearly very misleading.


source: http://www3.epa.gov/climatechange/pdfs/print_ghg-concentrations-2015.pdf

On the other hand, what are the terrible consequences you are speaking of? Animals that stop to excist? Sea level rising? Cause all of that has happened before as well. Earth will adapt to it. In the history of our planet this really doesn`t mean that much. For us as humans it is bad, but it doesn`t mean the end of the world.

Well of course the earth will live on, no one said climate change is going to blow up the earth into oblivion. It is us Humans and the rest of the current life on this planet who are in trouble.

edit: tipo

edit: regarding the influence of the sun on global warming, i was doubtful of what you were saying so i dig a little. Turns out this article explains exactly what i was suspecting you were doing (cherry picking the data to not include the recent years), wich i found funny:
https://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming.htm

Edited 10/31/2015 21:38:17

If you are, then I can at least understand why you might also be a climate denialist.

Did you not even read my post at all? I stated in the first line that I'm on the same exact side you are in this issue. At-least take stock of the facts at hand before making assumptions about me.

It's not your cause I'm taking issue with on this thread, it's your attitude and methods.

Not necessarily directly on the person being addressed, *but* -- when you can back up your claims about stupid shitty beliefs with evidence, as I did with the links provided -- then it just so happens that some people on the sidelines tend to see that the frustration with stupid and shitty beliefs is justified.

This strategy assumes that people on the sidelines are even listening. Nobody cares to sit down and watch/read two people scream insults at each other. Even if you're totally right, being arrogant and uncivil about it makes you appear less intelligent and lowers the chance of anyone taking the argument seriously.

And I don't say "Anyone who disagrees with us is an idiot"

Not directly, but it's heavily implied by the way you refer to any viewpoint which isn't yours as "stupid and shitty". By the way, you seem to have a penchant for those two words. Are they special to you for some reason?

There are many ways to influence public perceptions.

True, but some ways aren't good ones. Being arrogant and utterly disregarding anyone who thinks differently than you does not increase positive perception. When all you do is insult the other side it just makes everyone offended and brains start shutting down while emotion takes over. All hope of intelligent debate goes out the window once one side resorts to verbally slamming the other.

Sometimes what you call 'civility' can give unwarranted credence to stupid and shitty beliefs.

What's a "stupid and shitty belief" is pretty subjective and varies highly from person to person. What might seem logical to one will seem totally illogical to another. The only way to bring different view points together and actually get something done is to sit down and listen to all sides. Immediately assuming the high ground and treating any opposing points like dirt will make everyone dig their heels in.

Question for you: Are you a creationist?

That's pretty irrelevant to this conversation. But at great risk I will answer yes. (Here comes all personal attacks and insults about how "stupid and shitty" my views are and how everything else I said suddenly doesn't matter...)

I answered this last, because I know the tendency of people to illogically disregard everything else a person says just because, "OMG! HE DOESN'T BELIEVE IN THE EVOLUTION, NO CRIME IS GREATER!"

Denying anthropogenic climate change is *exactly* as stupid and arrogant

Once again I don`t see how denying something is stupid. Arrogant? I also fail to see that one. It seems more arrogant to think that we are able to change the climate and it isn`t cause by that massive star that has influenced life for as long as it exists.

You left out the crucial part of that quote: It is exactly as stupid and arrogant "as creationism".

Are you a creationist? If not, then can you see how believing in creationism is stupid and arrogant?

If you can see how *creationism* is stupid and arrogant, then that should give you a lens to see that climate denialism is the same kind of beast (to borrow some creationist jargon).

Denying something can be stupid if your reasons for denying it are stupid. It can be arrogant if you are denying it *in the face of* massive scientific evidence to the contrary.

"It seems more arrogant to think that we are able to change the climate"

Uhhh, why? You've heard of the hole in the ozone layer, right? Do you think it's arrogant to think that we caused that? How about acid rain?

We are regularly seeing the extinction of entire species of animal and plant life from over-hunting, over-fishing, and destruction of rain forests and other unique habitats. Do you think it's arrogant to think that humans caused that?

We burn a shit-load of carbon fuels. Like, a shit-load. That produces CO2. We know CO2 is a significant greenhouse gas; look at the planet Venus which is hotter than Mercury even though Mercury is a lot closer to the sun, because Venus' atmosphere has lots of CO2 in it. We have studied this with the scientific method, the *only* effective method for knowing this kind of stuff about the physical world. We have observed global warming over many decades, and have evidence of how climate works going back way longer than that, and the *only* explanation for recent global warming that accounts for all the evidence is that the cause is the excess CO2 from human activity. And you think it's arrogant to believe that?

Do you also think it's arrogant to believe that the Earth is billions of years old, or that organisms evolve by natural selection? If not, why not? We used *exactly the same method* to determine that: the scientific method. And yet, if you ask creationists, they will say, "Oh, but there's a lot of 'debate' over that, blah blah blah." Can you not see that it is the creationists who are being arrogant there, not the scientists? It is the *exact same situation* with anthropogenic climate change. Climate denialism and creationism are exactly equivalently stupid and arrogant beliefs.

I've got to say; this in your face "Anyone who disagrees with us is an idiot!" attitude isn't going to help anything.


In fact that attitude makes you look stupid. I never liked people who can`t understand that not everybody believes everything.

Whew, good thing 'that attitude' doesn't describe anyone on this thread then, eh? Mischaracterizing someone's position, aka the Straw Man fallacy, can also make one look stupid.

Did you not even read my post at all? I stated in the first line that I'm on the same exact side you are in this issue. At-least take stock of the facts at hand before making assumptions about me.

At 10/31/2015 16:29:26, I edited my post to add this:

[Edit: Apologies, I may have misread your statement about global warming. At first I thought it was ambiguous, now I'm not sure. So, to clarify I'll ask, do you go by the scientific consensus that GW is anthropogenic?]

Your reply was at 10/31/2015 16:46:59, about 15 minutes later. You were probably typing your reply to my old post, but in the mean time I *had* caught my possible mis-reading. Just saying.

This strategy assumes that people on the sidelines are even listening. Nobody cares to sit down and watch/read two people scream insults at each other.

a) Where have I screamed any insults at anyone in this thread? You might want to check your facts. If you're referring to my comment about climate denialists having their brains full of stupid and shitty beliefs, that's not an insult to the person. Lots of people have stupid and shitty beliefs. Probably the vast majority of people. Probably myself included. It's the *beliefs* that are the problem here. I'm shouting at people to *call attention to that*, not to insult them. I call the beliefs stupid and shitty, not people. If people are so attached to their beliefs that they take criticism of their beliefs as a personal insult, I'm afraid they will simply have to learn to get over that (if they don't want to be constantly offended). Beliefs are beliefs, people are people. They are not the same thing.

b) Of course people on the sidelines are reading this thread. Do you really need confirmation of this?

Even if you're totally right, being arrogant and uncivil about it makes you appear less intelligent and lowers the chance of anyone taking the argument seriously.

a) how am I being arrogant? I believe you would have to be making several faulty assumptions about what I've said in order to jump to that conclusion.

b) Thinking that someone's argument is unsound because of some unrelated characteristic of the person is known as the ad hominem fallacy. Thinking someone is less intelligent because of their tone of conversation is a non-sequitur fallacy.

c) There is evidence to the contrary of your claim that a caustic tone of argument "lowers the chance of anyone taking the argument seriously": See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anger#As_a_strategy

In fact, sometimes a non-violent expression of anger can be just what's needed to get bystanders motivated to take constructive action. Although this is from a fictional movie, it's iconic and serves the purpose of illustration with a classic quote: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Awv8dySZaHE

Not directly, but it's heavily implied by the way you refer to any viewpoint which isn't yours as "stupid and shitty".

I've pointed out before when you've mischaracterized my position. I do not "refer to any viewpoint which isn't yours as "stupid and shitty" ". How very 'uncivil' of you to keep repeating this false claim. I dare you to try quote me to back up your claim.

By the way, you seem to have a penchant for those two words. Are they special to you for some reason?

What is it with your attempts to try to read my mind? They are perfectly good words and using them to refer to beliefs which are, in fact, stupid and shitty, is quite apt, IMO. Why gloss over things? Why not call a spade a spade? Would you prefer some sort of bland euphemisms? I wouldn't.

True, but some ways aren't good ones. Being arrogant and utterly disregarding anyone who thinks differently than you does not increase positive perception.

Pro tip: You are not a convincing psychic. Back up your 'uncivil' characterization with quotes. Where do you get these wild interpretations?

When all you do is insult the other side it just makes everyone offended and brains start shutting down while emotion takes over.

a) I have not insulted anyone in this thread. My only insults have been to Nigel Lawson. If he has a problem with that he can come here and tell me himself.
b) Your mischaracterizations of my posts as "all you do is insult the other side" are intellectually dishonest straw man fallacies. You need to start backing up your claims with evidence (i.e. quotes).

All hope of intelligent debate goes out the window once one side resorts to verbally slamming the other.

Are you referring to yourself? You haven't addressed any of my arguments or references, only attempted to "verbally slam" me with straw men and ad homs.

What's a "stupid and shitty belief" is pretty subjective and varies highly from person to person.

So what? If you want to know what *I* mean by it, just ask.

What might seem logical to one will seem totally illogical to another.

*Seeming* to be logical (or merely 'correct' or 'true') is different from actually *being* logical (or correct or true). It matters not if someone *thinks* their position is 'not stupid' when in fact it *is* demonstrably stupid (e.g. it goes counter to masses of evidence and scientific consensus). You can argue all day about what *exactly* the word 'stupid' means, but it's a pretty straightforward word, and the vast majority of people reading this thread will know well enough what I mean by it.

The only way to bring different view points together and actually get something done is to sit down and listen to all sides.

And what do you do when the 'sides' don't agree and one side is *simply wrong* but won't or can't admit it? Do you keep debating 'civilly' for eons while the projected damage from climate change gets worse and worse? Or do you at some point just say, "Hey, wait a sec! This is a chess game and the 'other side' thinks it's checkers. Why are we taking them seriously again?"

Question for you: Are you a creationist?

That's pretty irrelevant to this conversation. But at great risk I will answer yes. (Here comes all personal attacks and insults about how "stupid and shitty" my views are and how everything else I said suddenly doesn't matter...)

(More faulty assumptions about me, and confusion between people and beliefs, but I'm going to ignore it in this case.)

The question of whether you're a creationist is relevant to my comparison between climate denialism and creationism. The question is to gauge whether the analogy will be understandable to you or not. It's only understandable if you *don't* believe in creationism; so it's not relevant to you. Instead I would use a different belief that you *don't* hold. A non-religious example might be denial that cigarettes (i.e. nicotine) cause cancer, or the belief that vaccines can cause autism.

The point is that if an on-the-fence person can be shown a stupid and shitty belief that they *don't* hold, and if you can get them to identify *why* it's stupid and shitty, then you can use that analogy with climate denialism to show that it's *also* stupid and shitty.

BTW, just for clarification: stupid means 'clearly wrong, to the best of our scientific knowledge', and shitty means 'not harmless, but actually harmful'. Believing that cigarettes don't cause cancer is a stupid belief because it's clearly wrong, and it's also shitty because it will lead to more cancer. Scares over vaccines and autism have lead to *numerous* deaths of young children from preventable diseases such as whooping cough; that's pretty shitty. Creationism (especially in the US) is (or has been) one of the biggest anti-science influences in education, which is shitty. Etc. Climate denialism has delayed our response to climate change (shitty), and is clearly wrong, to the best of our scientific knowledge (stupid).

Edited 11/1/2015 06:26:16

@wct

Dude you don't know what you are getting into. I'm doing you a solid here, stop arguing with this guy it is a waste of time, you can't use reason or logic with Eklipse. And if you think he is strawmaning you now, you don't know what's coming to you.
And it is a chance that no-one responded to Жұқтыру's desperate attempt to get attention by using the fascist card. I guess people just stopped paying attention to his bullshit. Because believe me, once these two team up to argue against you, it will make your head explode, you wouldn't believe the kind of gibberish nonsense their brain is capable of producing.

Yes, I know who I am, and yes, it does work. Not necessarily directly on the person being addressed, *but* -- when you can back up your claims about stupid shitty beliefs with evidence, as I did with the links provided -- then it just so happens that some people on the sidelines tend to see that the frustration with stupid and shitty beliefs is justified.

And I don't say "Anyone who disagrees with us is an idiot", I talk about the beliefs and actions of people, not the people themselves. (Unless it's a fuckwit like Nigel Lawson, who's not even a member of this forum, so I have no reason to be kind to him.)

There are many ways to influence public perceptions. Sometimes calling a spade a spade is a very effective way of pointing out that the Emperor is naked. To mix a couple of metaphors.

Sometimes what you call 'civility' can give unwarranted credence to stupid and shitty beliefs. It's a rather situation-dependent and person-dependent question as to which conversational strategies will be effective.

Question for you: Are you a creationist? If not, do you see how believing in creationism is stupid and shitty? (If you are, then I can at least understand why you might also be a climate denialist. But then there's a whole slew of other questions that follow...) [Edit: Apologies, I may have misread your statement about global warming. At first I thought it was ambiguous, now I'm not sure. So, to clarify I'll ask, do you go by the scientific consensus that GW is anthropogenic?]

First, the argument is ongoing, it has not finished. So you can not say that their beliefs are "stupid and shitty" until the argument is over, and even then, I very much do not recommend doing that. Insults are a very low thing to do in the first place.

It's like when a loud fellow and a quiet fellow talk together. The loud folk, if not liking how quiet the quiet fellow is, will speak louder and louder; but the quiet fellow, if not liking how loud the loud fellow is, will speak quieter and quieter. It leads to nothing, just more resolve in what you believe.

There's pointing out the Emperor is naked, but there's saying "What the f*** are you doing, go put your f****** clothes on, you motherf****** arse?". Not recommended.

This is simply not true, when 99%+ scientists studying climate agree that climate change is real and anthropogenic, there is no debate.

What? You even posted yourself that 94% scientists think this. You are heavily using bandwagon fallacy.

Ahaha really? What do you mean exactly? You think NASA is lying about the data? Keep in mind, the NASA graph shows the RECORDED data for temperatures since we began recording it (1880), and the source for the datas is certainly not all owned by NASA (since NASA was created in 1958). And you think NASA is lying about it? Why? You think all the scientists at NASA are in on a big conspiracy? And have kept it secret all this time? Come on...

It's a government organization, it will most likely be ok for this instance, but don't believe everything the government says.

wich i found funny.

I doubt you did. I really do.

You left out the crucial part of that quote: It is exactly as stupid and arrogant "as creationism".

You're doing it again, pretending the argument is already won and insulting folk.

Are you a creationist? If not, then can you see how believing in creationism is stupid and arrogant?

Eclipse reluctantly agreed to answer your irrelevant frain, and you start calling his beliefs stupid and arrogant? Arrogance I see most from you.

Denying something can be stupid if your reasons for denying it are stupid. It can be arrogant if you are denying it *in the face of* massive scientific evidence to the contrary.

You being a science lover, should know this quote. Réné Descartes did loads of thinking and he came up with this.

I think, thus I am being.

Many folk don't really understand what this quote means. It means that you can't be 100% sure about anything, other than that you, your consciousness, exists.

We burn a shit-load of carbon fuels. Like, a shit-load.

This has been your most applicable use of insults so far. However, actual relative values are nice and better.

Whew, good thing 'that attitude' doesn't describe anyone on this thread then, eh? Mischaracterizing someone's position, aka the Straw Man fallacy, can also make one look stupid.

Denying anthropogenic climate change is *exactly* as stupid and arrogant as being a creationist.

If you can see how *creationism* is stupid and arrogant, then that should give you a lens to see that climate denialism is the same kind of beast (to borrow some creationist jargon).

Where have I screamed any insults at anyone in this thread? You might want to check your facts. If you're referring to my comment about climate denialists having their brains full of stupid and shitty beliefs, that's not an insult to the person. Lots of people have stupid and shitty beliefs. Probably the vast majority of people. Probably myself included. It's the *beliefs* that are the problem here. I'm shouting at people to *call attention to that*, not to insult them. I call the beliefs stupid and shitty, not people. If people are so attached to their beliefs that they take criticism of their beliefs as a personal insult, I'm afraid they will simply have to learn to get over that (if they don't want to be constantly offended). Beliefs are beliefs, people are people. They are not the same thing.

Calling someone's beliefs doltish is technically not to the man fallacy, but it is another logic fallacy: assuming a claim is true before proven/no arguments left to deny.

Thinking that someone's argument is unsound because of some unrelated characteristic of the person is known as the ad hominem fallacy. Thinking someone is less intelligent because of their tone of conversation is a non-sequitur fallacy.

This is actually a problem in Warlight. Whenever folk have beliefs that 4/5 folk reject, folk don't bother arguing, they just insult and ridicule them mostly which is what you are doing here with Eklipse being a creationist.

There is evidence to the contrary of your claim that a caustic tone of argument "lowers the chance of anyone taking the argument seriously": See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anger#As_a_strategy

It's true, anger can be used as a motivator, but only if you 1: have a position of power in a negotiation (say hostage crisis) or 2: if you successfully construct a one-sided argument in a speech for your audience (this does not convince anybody; it only hardens resolve). And anger during a debate is just unacceptable, since most folk will not buy things from television or discount what folk say "since too much logic fallacy".

Are you referring to yourself? You haven't addressed any of my arguments or references, only attempted to "verbally slam" me with straw men and ad homs.

Who has been using "stupid" and "shit" to describe opposing beliefs this whole time?

And what do you do when the 'sides' don't agree and one side is *simply wrong* but won't or can't admit it? Do you keep debating 'civilly' for eons while the projected damage from climate change gets worse and worse?

There are always an argument, but this "Or do you at some point just say, "Hey, wait a sec! This is a chess game and the 'other side' thinks it's checkers. Why are we taking them seriously again?"" attitude is why it is not getting anywhere. You are strongly showing this attitude.

It's only understandable if you *don't* believe in creationism; so it's not relevant to you. Instead I would use a different belief that you *don't* hold. A non-religious example might be denial that cigarettes (i.e. nicotine) cause cancer, or the belief that vaccines can cause autism.

It's not acceptable to insult beliefs such as cigarettes are cancerbegetting, or vaccines trigger autism, either and just makes the situation harder to resolve and reach consensus.

---

Fascist attitude is when you can be killed for expressing heterodox belief. Obviously, you're not getting killed, fascism is just insult, but it is a strong bigotry.

EDIT: Before anyone says that I am cherry-picking, I have no belief on whether climate change is human-made or not. I am not arguing for or against that, I am arguing against the toxic fascism here.

Edited 11/1/2015 00:14:14

hahahahahahaha I am a visionnary

Dude you don't know what you are getting into. I'm doing you a solid here, stop arguing with this guy it is a waste of time, you can't use reason or logic with Eklipse.

Dude, I do know what I'm getting into. a) I've argued with him before. b) There are more people reading the thread than there are writing posts in it. You don't have to convince the person you're debating with to still provide useful info/arguments/ideas to the public at large.

Do you think Christopher Hitchens made public debates with the expectation that he would convince his debate opponents?

you wouldn't believe the kind of gibberish nonsense their brain is capable of producing.

I've dealt with far, far worse. These guys are writing on-topic, intelligible posts. They are not that bad, comparatively. Once you work your way past the bullshit ad homs and whatnot, it is, in fact, possible to get a good overall discussion out of most people, even entrenched ideologues.

Don't worry about me. If I get tired of it, I'll do something else. But actually, I think too many people give up on these arguments too early, leaving the general public with too much of an impression that there really is a legitimate 'debate', when the evidence is actually massively one-sided.

good luck to you sir, looks like you have a massive serie of headbanging against the wall coming up

c) There is evidence to the contrary of your claim that a caustic tone of argument "lowers the chance of anyone taking the argument seriously": See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anger#As_a_strategy

If you're angrily arguing face-to-face, yes. The page you linked even says it: people observe your emotional state, draw conclusions about your limits, then alter their decision about conceding a point based on what they think your limits are. Perfectly valid conclusion... but not applicable here. Think about it, in person, I might conclude that further argument could provoke you and end in physical harm to me, so I may stop arguing. On this forum, however, my conclusions about your limits are vastly different. Your primary limit to your actions is not your emotions, as it would be in person. It is the format by which we are communicating. I have subconsciously concluded that you appear to be too rational to track me down and do anything because of my comments on Warlight. Thus, I conclude that arguing a point with you will never have physical effects on me, because my comments do not affect your limits. I am then free to conclude (not saying I do) that you are a petulant child who doesn't understand logical arguments. This leads to me dismissing you, not respecting you because of your anger.

b) Thinking that someone's argument is unsound because of some unrelated characteristic of the person is known as the ad hominem fallacy. Thinking someone is less intelligent because of their tone of conversation is a non-sequitur fallacy.

He was talking about the general public's perception of you. I assume you concede that the general public is not always perfectly logical?

Edited 11/1/2015 00:35:33