In a word
Don’t
Especially if they are Progressives. They are all rigid, myopic ideologues bound by talking points without critical adult thinking. It’s exceedingly rare that any will ever change their minds, as most are close-minded and interested in political advantage and instituting their far left dogma of big fascistic government (for Other People), not science.
Sure, the conversations can be fun as you reduce them to quivering masses of moonbattery, to the point they stomp off. Some are better than others, yet the majority are unhinged, and you’re wasting your breathe and time.
Have you noticed that few of my “climate change” posts are aimed at changing minds? A good chunk are simply derogatory towards Warmists (really, I don’t bother with most issues. I used to attempt to sway minds, as did other conservatives, but that ended years ago). Well, they are aimed at middle ground thinkers to a degree.
On a few occasions there can be debate, as witnessed here recently. But, ask a Warmist why they don’t walk the talk and it goes goofy.
Anyhow, this can all be summed up by the saying “don’t try to teach a pig to dance. You waste your time and annoy the pig.”
Where did all this come from? Well, Geoff Dembicki at Salon tries the old “how to talk to a conservative about Hotcoldwetdry”
Our climate change debate is stuck in a “left-wing ghetto.†That was one provocative conclusion reached during a high-level panel of politicians, environmental thinkers, journalists and business people in London, England.
“[Twenty] years of ‘awareness raising,’ grandiose pleas to save the planet, lots of talk about sacrifice, apocalyptic messages and photos of polar bears,†a recent summary report explained, “have trapped climate change in a niche that it urgently needs to break out of.â€
Perhaps that’s because you folks are chicken little’s who refuse to practice what you preach, and all your “solutions” revolve around Big Government, taxation, and control of citizens and the private economy.
I’ll skip through lots of the silliness, including a mention of the much discredited “97% consensus” meme, getting to how “social scientist”, ie, community organizers with an agenda to push, think they can get Conservatives to buy into their far left Progressive beliefs
1. We’re all a bit irrational…Yet getting conservatives concerned about global warming means liberals need to first recognize their own moral biases, and how the climate arguments they make can reinforce them. (In other words, Liberals are emotional messes arguing from some sort of misguided moral position, and need to act like adults)
2. Information is rarely neutral…“Once someone connects a position on an issue to their cultural identity,†Hoffman said, “to try and get them to accept something that contradicts that identity is really challenging.†(Liberals believe that everything causes Hotcoldwetdry, Conservatives immediately reject most notions of AGW)
3. Too much fear will backfire…One tactic used again and again by climate change campaigners is fear: alarm the public enough about rising sea levels, extended droughts and infectious diseases, and surely it will be convinced to take action on the issue. (all the Warmists do is fear-monger.)
One fascinating study, conducted in part by Stanford University’s Robb Willer, suggested when people’s belief in a just world is challenged by dire climate predictions, they become less determined to shrink their carbon footprint. (and, humorously, Warmists are the worst offenders)
4. Messengers can trump messages…Knowing that left and right-wing people approach morality from different perspectives, filter facts through separate emotions and aren’t motivated equally by fear, how can a climate change campaigner hope to be heard across the divide? Perhaps by handing the microphone to someone else. (but most they hand the microphone to who are Republicans will be ignored. Because they’re idiots to buy into the “climate change” narrative)
5. ‘Green’ has its limits…But in order to convince opinion leaders outside the so-called “left-wing ghetto†that global warming is an urgent issue, campaigners need to speak a different language. And that might mean not invoking “green†values at all. (they’re not talking about being realistic, but about language changes, such as “Farmers worry about “diminished crop yields.— Despite crop yields growing by leaps and bounds. Or the way global warming was changed to “we’re all f*cking doomed because you drive a fossil fueled vehicle…now I have to pick up the kids in the Suburban after the climate change rally”)
In the end, Liberals and Conservatives do tend to agree on certain things: we do want to move towards alternative energy sources. Most conservatives have no problem with solar, wind, hydrothermal, and others. We disagree with how to get there. We agree in conserving the planet. How we get there is the bone of contention. We agree on clean air, water, and land. We don’t agree that a trace gas necessary for life will make the earth a polluted wasteland. And we don’t agree that the solutions should be massive fascistic government.
Warmists keep trying to find ways to “talk” to people about their beliefs. But, that’s all they do. They themselves are hypocrites. Would you listen to a guy who’s obesely overweight saying that everyone should cut back on their calories?
Note comments in the past by john. It is impossible to discuss reason.
[…] talk to us deniers. His advice to conservatives on talking to liberals about climate change – save your breath.They are all rigid, myopic ideologues bound by talking points without critical adult thinking. […]
William Teach: We don’t agree that a trace gas necessary for life will make the earth a polluted wasteland.
That’s a scientific question, not a political one. That’s an exaggeration, but unabated emissions of greenhouse gases will certainly have profound effects on climate.
zachriel,
You mean the emission of greenhouse gas from volcanos? Or for that matter from any other natural source produce by the planet. Of course, the best thing to do is eliminate our fossil fuel use, thus destroying our economy and our way of life and yet only have single digit effects on any greenhouse production and any CO2 elimination and thus no real influence.
I will give you some examples of the idiot ideas we have been subjected to from the liberals:
1. The horror of silent spring, a book of fiction that was endorsed by the left and resulted in the ban on DDT. Thus the death of millions around the world.
2. The lefts need to provide affordable housing for people who could not afford it and thus the collapse of the world economy, which we are still suffering from. Main individual involved, Barney Frank.
3. The emphasis in cholesterol as a prime component in CV disease. This was a movement started by liberals in the 60’s. It shifted the focus on CV disease and is very much similar to what is happening with the climate issue. A new specialty was created known as lipidologist. They all agreed that cholesterol was the main culprit in causing heart attacks. We now know that low cholesterol diets and medications for lowering cholesterol are responsible for untold deaths and injury. Yet high cholesterol does nothing. This fact will be prevalent in your universe in about 5 to 10 years as the “experts” and “scientist” have their research and facts reversed and the real cause of CV disease will be established, look for it.
4. The war on poverty, the great liberal experiment on helping the downtrodden. This has been an unmitigated disaster and resulted in the enslavement of millions and the cost has been in the trillions.
The fact is that liberals kill people and waste our wealth. The climate situation is yet another great liberal cause that will result in further misery for the masses.
Human emissions of CO2 dwarf volcanic emissions.
Afraid not zachriel.
U.S. Geological Survey: Do the Earth’s volcanoes emit more CO2 than human activities? Research findings indicate that the answer to this frequently asked question is a clear and unequivocal, “No.†Human activities, responsible for a projected 35 billion metric tons (gigatons) of CO2 emissions in 2010 (Friedlingstein et al., 2010), release an amount of CO2 that dwarfs the annual CO2 emissions of all the world’s degassing subaerial and submarine volcanoes (Gerlach, 2011).
http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/hazards/gas/climate.php
Gerlach, Volcanic Versus Anthropogenic Carbon Dioxide, EOS, Transactions, American Geophysical Union 2011: Which emits more carbon dioxide (CO2): Earth’s volcanoes or human activities? Research findings indicate unequivocally that the answer to this frequently asked question is human activities.
http://www.agu.org/pubs/pdf/2011EO240001.pdf
Once again we see that Zach has issues when trying to comprhend other points of view.
Here’s a hint for you Zach: your response did not address david’s point.
Hmm.
Z: humans emit more CO2 than volcanoes
D: no
Z: citations that support claim
Not sure your point.
U.S. Geological Survey: Do the Earth’s volcanoes emit more CO2 than human activities? Research findings indicate that the answer to this frequently asked question is a clear and unequivocal, “No.â€
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Yeah right and the check is in the mail too. /sarc
Just discovered Thousand of new volcanoes revealed beneath the waves
and Arctic Volcanoes Found Active at Unprecedented Depths
and Giant Undersea Volcanoes Found Off Antarctica
And that is just a quickie look.
In other words they don’t have the foggiest notion of what they are writing about but they DO know where their grant funding comes from.
And please don’t tell me scientists don’t lie to protect/advance their careers. After forty years as a scientist I will laugh in your face.
US Scientists Significantly More Likely to Publish Fake Research, Study Finds
When protecting the pay check (and your family) is weighed against being honest, honesty usually loses.
If you buck the prevailing political agenda you will not only lose your job but you could be blackballed and never find another job (again speaking from experience.) Honesty is a luxury only available to those of independent wealth.
An example:
That isn’t even getting into the fact that 70% of the earth’s surface is covered by water and warm water out gases CO2, the logical link between temperature and CO2 especially since CO2 LAGS temperature by about 800 years. (The oceans turn over about once every 800-1000 years)
(Sorry if this is a repeat)
U.S. Geological Survey: Do the Earth’s volcanoes emit more CO2 than human activities? Research findings indicate that the answer to this frequently asked question is a clear and unequivocal, “No.â€
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Yeah right and the check is in the mail too. /sarc
Just discovered Thousand of new volcanoes revealed beneath the waves
and Arctic Volcanoes Found Active at Unprecedented Depths
and Giant Undersea Volcanoes Found Off Antarctica
And that is just a quickie look.
In other words they don’t have the foggiest notion of what they are writing about but they DO know where their grant funding comes from.
And please don’t tell me scientists don’t lie to protect/advance their careers. After forty years as a scientist I will laugh in your face.
US Scientists Significantly More Likely to Publish Fake Research, Study Finds
When protecting the pay check (and your family) is weighed against being honest, honesty usually loses.
If you buck the prevailing political agenda you will not only lose your job but you could be blackballed and never find another job (again speaking from experience.) Honesty is a luxury only available to those of independent wealth.
An example:
That isn’t even getting into the fact that 70% of the earth’s surface is covered by water and warm water out gases CO2, the logical link between temperature and CO2 especially since CO2 LAGS temperature by about 800 years. (The oceans turn over about once every 800-1000 years)
It’s going to be finish of mine day, except before ending I am reading this fantastic post to improve my experience.
And the estimate of CO2 emissions?
The oceans are currently net absorbers of CO2.