Yes, it is the holiday season. Christmas, New Year’s, Hanukkah, and a host of others. So, you obviously need tips on nagging talking to people on ‘climate change’. These are critical tips, if we go by the writing in the browser bar at Eco Watch
5 Tips on How to Talk Climate Change This Holiday Season
We’ve entered a new political era and emotions are raw—even over a scientifically settled topic such as climate change. Discussions that escalate into arguments can easily ruin a family holiday party or sour a dinner with friends.
That doesn’t mean sensitive topics or opposing views must be swept under the rug.
The trick is to use patience, tolerance, an optimistic tone—and last, but not least, a keen understanding of your audience—to nudge your climate-skeptic sister or father-in-law. You may find they’re suddenly open to your views.
Here are five tips to keep in mind as you get ready for the conversation:
Missing from the list is “Stop. No one is interested in your pseudo-religious views, no one wants to listen to you nag, we’re watching football here, and, hey, if fossil fuels are so bad, why’d you drive here?”
- First of all: Don’t get angry. (good luck with that. You’re a Leftist, after all)
- Leave apocalypse to the movies. (the suggestion is to talk about economic benefits and stuff, but, really, 97% of Warmist utterings are about doom)
- Seek common ground. (this is about showing respect for opposite views. So, yeah, it can’t happen, because liberals only show tolerance for radical Islam)
- Tell your own stories. (because the beach eroded, the Earth is doomed or something)
- Stick to the facts. (well, since Eco Watch trots out the 97% canard, facts have gone out the window)
That should work out well, right?
Having your facts straight is important, so do your homework and offer to get back to your father-in-law with more information if you can’t answer a question.
This is a suggestion to prepare talking points prior to attending an event, meaning this is a suggestion to intentionally engage your friends and relatives in a political conversation they would prefer to not have. To annoy people. To nag them. And then you’ll wonder why they tell you to go outside till dinner, then rush you out the door afterwards.
They knifed themselves in the back when they turned this into a political movement and then forced that movement on the world….
Had the movement been about positives rather then trying to scare the shit out of everyone then it would have been much farther along then it is now….
I have always been on the alternative bandwagon….but not at the expense of feeding the world. England should be investing heavily into Tidal harness…That alone for an Island nation the size of England could be solving their woes….
But alas as a friend of mine who lives in England and works for the Government says…that would cost money…money we dont have because were too busy giving away everything we can as fast as we can to as many as we can….its why we left the EU…we can no longer afford the influx of Immigrants like baby birds yapping for MORE and MORE and MORE.
While the suggestions are trite with no significant explanation, Teach’s responses are just as bad if not worse:
First of all: Don’t get angry. (Teach: good luck with that. You’re a Leftist, after all) Only those that understand AGW get angry, LOL? Have you ever tried to discuss anything with a science Denier?
Leave apocalypse to the movies. (Teach: the suggestion is to talk about economic benefits and stuff, but, really, 97% of Warmist utterings are about doom) This is a good suggestion and even Teach agrees.
Seek common ground. (Teach: this is about showing respect for opposite views. So, yeah, it can’t happen, because liberals only show tolerance for radical Islam) This is tougher since many on the right Deny scientific findings. If someone claims it’s not warming there is no common ground.
Tell your own stories. (Teach: because the beach eroded, the Earth is doomed or something) Probably won’t work.
Stick to the facts. (Teach: well, since Eco Watch trots out the 97% canard, facts have gone out the window) Study after study finds that over 90% of climate scientists support the theory that increased CO2 is causing the Earth to warm
http://www.ecowatch.com/consensus-on-consensus-97-of-the-worlds-climate-scientists-say-humans–1891114302.html
For example, see http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/10/9/094025/meta
The article by Sam Parry is silly because it begins:
We’ve entered a new political era and emotions are raw—even over a scientifically settled topic such as climate change.
Rev,
What is settled is that the Earth is warming from CO2 we’ve added to the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels. That is not to say every issue around those facts are nailed down. That’s the nature of scientific endeavors.
It’s disturbing that your position about AGW is determined by a commenter online rather than the evidence. It’s unlikely you are being truthful about that.
If your point is that you will only listen to climate scientists then we are on the same side. Almost all understand and will attest that “the Earth is warming from CO2 we’ve added to the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels”.
What are your concerns about the reliability of the data supporting warming and CO2?
I agree 100% Jeffery.
And there is the fly in the ointment. Many facts are not “nailed down”. Several important facts. I can only evaluate a situation with the facts at hand and when I know them to be woefully inadequate to make an enlightened decision, especially one with as much geopolitical and economic impact as AGW I think further analysis is called for.
I’m a businessman Jeffery so I’m used to taking chances, my career was built on taking chances, but I am not the type to make far reaching decisions without as many facts as I can get and unfortunately the AGW “community” decided it was going to be a political issue so here we are. When the scientists presenting the evidence (which changes annually if not more) have their income attached to a certain outcome I am suspect. Call me crazy. And when “true believers” in anything are confronted with doubt and their response is to call names and label people (“deniers”) in derogatory terms my reaction is to figure they are hiding something and I’m being lied to.
Why would you say my position on anything is determined by a “commenter on line rather than the evidence”? Again, if I have doubt or disagree with you it must mean I just some stupid asshole being lead around by my nose? Is that your point? Or is your point the next line where, once again because I disagree with you, you find it necessary to call me a liar? So my only choice for not being with you 100% is that I’m either an idiot or a liar. Do you see why every discussion with you quickly deteriorates to a kindergarten name calling stupidfest?
Okay, but I don’t believe it is either detrimental nor permanent. And I don’t believe they know how much is manmade and what is natural. And they fail to say how much is acceptable without major difficulties.
I think I’ve explained that. It appears to me those pushing AGW are on the payroll for AGW. That in itself is no problem, after all those pushing Whoppers are on the payroll of Burger King. The difference is they have not conjoined with the power of government to force us all to pay for and eat them. Plus, there is nothing where 97% of those involved agree. Also, the stories of the “denier” scientists being blackballed and threatened don’t help. Looks suspicious.
Friday morning links
Image via Never Yet Melted. Grammar is correct, but the message is wrong. Good grammar does not compensate for an erroneous message. The Core Values of a Gentleman Lifestyles of the Rich and Bureaucratic Like a Candle In Berlin – On the curiou
One of the issues not nailed down is how the small affect of increased CO2. The first study that examined increased warming by measurement only found an increase of 0.2 watts per square meter per decade for a CO2 increase of 20ppm per decade. Also, even Dr. Mann has observed that the rate of warming has slowed down, in a paper that lists him as a co-author, back in february of this year.
As the rate of addition of CO2 to the atmosphere from human activities has accelerated, between 1998 and 2016, while the rate of warming has decelerated, the contribution of human activities to warming must be lower than the climate models insist and the inability of the climate models to accurately gauge warming confirms this fact.