Skeptics Guide to the Universe Forums

General Discussions => Skepticism / Science Talk => Topic started by: Quetzalcoatl on January 10, 2019, 03:32:06 PM

Title: How do you argue with (libertarian) climate change deniers?
Post by: Quetzalcoatl on January 10, 2019, 03:32:06 PM
I occasionally read a few Swedish libertarian blogs. And they are all deep into global warming denial, as are those who write in the comment fields. And so I thought that arguing about it, trying to spread some skeptical thinking and appreciation for science could be a worthwhile excercise. Perhaps not unsurprisingly, I was wrong. But promoting skeptical thinking is always good, and climate change is I would say the most important issue we are facing right now, and will perhaps be so for the rest of this century. So at least trying is at least well-intentioned.

The responses tend to be "The climate of the Earth has always been changing.", "This is alarmism!", "They said there was going to be an ice age in the 70s!", and various ad hominem attacks of individual climate scientists and the IPCC. How do you even begin to crack the nut, so to speak?
Title: Re: How do you argue with (libertarian) climate change deniers?
Post by: Soldier of FORTRAN on January 10, 2019, 03:44:38 PM
At this point, I don't think there's any honest deniers left.  The only remaining motives are financial and wanting outlets for condescension, harassment, etc. 

At best, they're foils for presenting material to the audience.  Most social media is mostly frequented by non-participating lurkers.

Deniers are apt to hallucinate as hard they need to to keep thumbing their noses at people.  Audiences, however, are less likely to be committed to denialism and will probably tend toward being more receptive to information and analysis.
Title: Re: How do you argue with (libertarian) climate change deniers?
Post by: Ah.hell on January 10, 2019, 04:32:33 PM
I don't bother, I do think there are honest deniers out there, I think they're just so invested in that particular rat hole that there's no convincing them otherwise.  Its basically all conspiracy theory at this point.  Its only worth arguing if you think there's someone in audience that might not be invested in the BS yet.

So, I'm not that different from Fortran just more charitable to the volk. 
Title: Re: How do you argue with (libertarian) climate change deniers?
Post by: bachfiend on January 11, 2019, 02:45:15 PM
First of all, you need to determine which flavour of global warming denial is being expoused.  Is it:

Global warming isn’t happening?

Or, global warming is happening, but it’s not due to human activities?

Or, global warming is happening, it’s due to human activities, but it’s going to be marvellous?

Or, global warming is happening, it’s due to human activities, and it may have some bad consequences, but there’s nothing that can be done to prevent it (the countermeasures are too expensive, so it’s better to put resources into reversing the damage)?

I think it’s better asking questions instead of trying to lecture deniers.  So go through the  flavours of denial.  First question ‘Is global warming happening?’
Title: Re: How do you argue with (libertarian) climate change deniers?
Post by: Quetzalcoatl on January 11, 2019, 03:00:30 PM
Their general position seems to be that global warming is happening, that it is not clear to what extent humans are responsible, and that it's not going to be so bad (the "alarmism" gambit).
Title: Re: How do you argue with (libertarian) climate change deniers?
Post by: Beef Wellington on January 11, 2019, 03:47:29 PM
You don't. I used to be one. There is likely nothing you can say or do to change their minds unless they actively want to learn.
Title: Re: How do you argue with (libertarian) climate change deniers?
Post by: bachfiend on January 11, 2019, 04:28:47 PM
Their general position seems to be that global warming is happening, that it is not clear to what extent humans are responsible, and that it's not going to be so bad (the "alarmism" gambit).

If you can manage to question a global warming denier down to number 4, that there’s nothing that can be done, and manage to question the denier out of that position, then you can pick a real denier when he or she returns to number 1, that it’s not happening.  Real deniers manage to espouse all positions simultaneously or consecutively.  I’m distinguishing between ‘deniers’ and sceptics.’
Title: Re: How do you argue with (libertarian) climate change deniers?
Post by: JohnM on January 11, 2019, 05:03:07 PM
Their general position seems to be that global warming is happening, that it is not clear to what extent humans are responsible, and that it's not going to be so bad (the "alarmism" gambit).

Get them to watch the south park double bill.
Title: Re: How do you argue with (libertarian) climate change deniers?
Post by: John Albert on January 11, 2019, 07:03:20 PM
First of all, you need to determine which flavour of global warming denial is being expoused.  Is it:

Global warming isn’t happening?

Or, global warming is happening, but it’s not due to human activities?

Or, global warming is happening, it’s due to human activities, but it’s going to be marvellous?

Or, global warming is happening, it’s due to human activities, and it may have some bad consequences, but there’s nothing that can be done to prevent it (the countermeasures are too expensive, so it’s better to put resources into reversing the damage)?

I think it’s better asking questions instead of trying to lecture deniers.  So go through the  flavours of denial.  First question ‘Is global warming happening?’

This is definitely the place to start. Delineate the parameters of debate by finding your points of agreement. For AGW discussions, that will probably start with finding out which portions of the climate data are they willing to admit to.

Do they even accept that the climate is actually changing at all? Most reasonable people are willing to admit that something drastic is happening to the global climate, especially if they're old enough to have personally witnessed local changes and the increase in extreme weather incidents. Younger climate change denialists might be harder to convince, merely because of their more limited frame of experience. If they're unwilling to even admit that global temperatures are indeed rising, then you have to start from square one with evidence for the warming trend. Start with the most obvious observable effects, such as global temperature readings, warming oceans, glacial retreat, receding polar ice, rising seal levels, lower snowfall rates, extreme weather, ocean acidification, etc.

Do they acknowledge that the climate is getting warmer, but attribute it to something other than human activity? If that's the case, then you need to show the data that correlates the rise of industry and rate of human energy consumption with greenhouse gas emissions, and those emissions with global temperatures. It's also helpful to show physical evidence such as satellite measurements, ice core data, and spectroscopy data. 

If they acknowledge that the Earth's climate is indeed warming and it's due to human activity, then you're halfway there. Now all that remains is to establish why it's a problem and discuss potential resolutions.
Title: Re: How do you argue with (libertarian) climate change deniers?
Post by: bachfiend on January 11, 2019, 07:25:16 PM
First of all, you need to determine which flavour of global warming denial is being expoused.  Is it:

Global warming isn’t happening?

Or, global warming is happening, but it’s not due to human activities?

Or, global warming is happening, it’s due to human activities, but it’s going to be marvellous?

Or, global warming is happening, it’s due to human activities, and it may have some bad consequences, but there’s nothing that can be done to prevent it (the countermeasures are too expensive, so it’s better to put resources into reversing the damage)?

I think it’s better asking questions instead of trying to lecture deniers.  So go through the  flavours of denial.  First question ‘Is global warming happening?’

This is definitely the place to start. Delineate the parameters of debate by finding your points of agreement. For AGW discussions, that will probably start with finding out which portions of the climate data are they willing to admit to.

Do they even accept that the climate is actually changing at all? Most reasonable people are willing to admit that something drastic is happening to the global climate, especially if they're old enough to have personally witnessed local changes and the increase in extreme weather incidents. Younger climate change denialists might be harder to convince, merely because of their more limited frame of experience. If they're unwilling to even admit that global temperatures are indeed rising, then you have to start from square one with evidence for the warming trend. Start with the most obvious observable effects, such as global temperature readings, warming oceans, glacial retreat, receding polar ice, rising seal levels, lower snowfall rates, extreme weather, ocean acidification, etc.

Do they acknowledge that the climate is getting warmer, but attribute it to something other than human activity? If that's the case, then you need to show the data that correlates the rise of industry and rate of human energy consumption with greenhouse gas emissions, and those emissions with global temperatures. It's also helpful to show physical evidence such as satellite measurements, ice core data, and spectroscopy data. 

If they acknowledge that the Earth's climate is indeed warming and it's due to human activity, then you're halfway there. Now all that remains is to establish why it's a problem and discuss potential resolutions.

The oceans are warming more quickly than expected 5 years ago.  I know someone who recently returned from a holiday on Mauritius (and she didn’t see any dodos, alas), and she says that she was disappointed that all the corals are bleached (our problems with the Great Barrier Reef seem ‘lesser’ in that there are reefs with non-bleached corals).

I fear that there’ll come a time in my lifespan (and I don’t have many years left) when live colourful corals will be only seen on DVD.
Title: Re: How do you argue with (libertarian) climate change deniers?
Post by: John Albert on January 11, 2019, 08:03:25 PM
I just wish we could get back to a time when we weren't having entire cities destroyed by hurricanes every couple years.

Regarding science discussions with ideologues, the problem with these kinds of debates is that most people who approach scientific issues from ideological viewpoints probably aren't going to be swayed very much by the presentation of evidence. Most of the hardcore libertarians are already well dug into their ideological foxholes. Chances are, they've probably been reading all about the "Great Climate Hoax" on their favorite libertarian and conspiracist websites for at least as long as you've been reading the legit science about AGW. So from their perspective they're the ones informed about the actual truth, and you're being misled by the mainstream media. Usually they'll respond with some rhetorical pivot like dismissing the scientific evidence on the basis of conspiracy accusations, assertions of political bias, etc.

They also have their own alternate experts and sources that usually trace back to think tanks like the Van Mises Institute and the Cato Institute. You can try to debunk those sources as fringe ideologues or paid shills, but that approach could backfire and turn into a big game of "he said she said," with the libertarian defaulting to his own sources and denying all else.

If you have the training and are so technically inclined, you could try to examine the anti-AGW studies to find specific flaws in their methodology or conclusions. But be careful; appealing to scientific literature is a fraught endeavor for those with no expertise in the relevant research and statistical methods. Overly techy information with lots of charts, graphs, arcane equations and terminology may look impressive on an Internet message board, but trying to make sense of all that data tends to make the layman's eyes glaze over. In the interest of intellectual honesty, it's generally not a good idea to post links to raw scientific literature unless you really understand the methodology and are prepared to discuss it in minute detail.

At any rate, you should try to clearly establish that all scientific sources are not equal, and make a point of differentiate the scientific consensus from the fringe.

One of my favorite skeptic debaters, Tracie Harris of The Atheist Experience call-in show, has a great comeback to science deniers. She basically admits she's not a scientist, and defers to the consensus of experts on matters of science. Then she suggests that if the caller is such an expert on scientific matters, they should take their case direct to the scientific community. She invites them to write a paper and try to get it published in a peer-reviewed journal so it can be entered into the professional scientific discourse. If it turns out the caller is right about the science, then their theory will represent a new "breakthrough" and the consensus will change. After that happens, they can call back and she will grant them the benefit of expertise on that particular issue. It usually shuts them down, but I wonder if any callers into The Atheist Experience have ever actually had papers published. I'm guessing not.
Title: Re: How do you argue with (libertarian) climate change deniers?
Post by: bachfiend on January 11, 2019, 08:59:25 PM
I just wish we could get back to a time when we weren't having entire cities destroyed by hurricanes every couple years.

Regarding science discussions with ideologues, the problem with these kinds of debates is that most people who approach scientific issues from ideological viewpoints probably aren't going to be swayed very much by the presentation of evidence. Most of the hardcore libertarians are already well dug into their ideological foxholes. Chances are, they've probably been reading all about the "Great Climate Hoax" on their favorite libertarian and conspiracist websites for at least as long as you've been reading the legit science about AGW. So from their perspective they're the ones informed about the actual truth, and you're being misled by the mainstream media. Usually they'll respond with some rhetorical pivot like dismissing the scientific evidence on the basis of conspiracy accusations, assertions of political bias, etc.

They also have their own alternate experts and sources that usually trace back to think tanks like the Van Mises Institute and the Cato Institute. You can try to debunk those sources as fringe ideologues or paid shills, but that approach could backfire and turn into a big game of "he said she said," with the libertarian defaulting to his own sources and denying all else.

If you have the training and are so technically inclined, you could try to examine the anti-AGW studies to find specific flaws in their methodology or conclusions. But be careful; appealing to scientific literature is a fraught endeavor for those with no expertise in the relevant research and statistical methods. Overly techy information with lots of charts, graphs, arcane equations and terminology may look impressive on an Internet message board, but trying to make sense of all that data tends to make the layman's eyes glaze over. In the interest of intellectual honesty, it's generally not a good idea to post links to raw scientific literature unless you really understand the methodology and are prepared to discuss it in minute detail.

At any rate, you should try to clearly establish that all scientific sources are not equal, and make a point of differentiate the scientific consensus from the fringe.

One of my favorite skeptic debaters, Tracie Harris of The Atheist Experience call-in show, has a great comeback to science deniers. She basically admits she's not a scientist, and defers to the consensus of experts on matters of science. Then she suggests that if the caller is such an expert on scientific matters, they should take their case direct to the scientific community. She invites them to write a paper and try to get it published in a peer-reviewed journal so it can be entered into the professional scientific discourse. If it turns out the caller is right about the science, then their theory will represent a new "breakthrough" and the consensus will change. After that happens, they can call back and she will grant them the benefit of expertise on that particular issue. It usually shuts them down, but I wonder if any callers into The Atheist Experience have ever actually had papers published. I'm guessing not.

Deniers usually invoke the Galileo gambit.  There are ‘good’ anti-AGW papers being written, but the conspiracy is refusing to publish them.  Or so they claim.  There’s even an Australian Galileo Movement, which uses Galileo’s outcast status (during his time) to polish their denialist credentials (and ironically, Galileo was wrong about a lot of things, including still thinking that planetary orbits were circular despite Kepler having earlier established that they are elliptical - he’s excused by the lack of Google during his time I suppose).
Title: Re: How do you argue with (libertarian) climate change deniers?
Post by: stands2reason on January 12, 2019, 12:03:34 AM
I don't know if I have any particular insight into that culture. I've been a science enthusiast for as long as I've been libertarian, and I've never been an AGW denier. OTOH, I do have experience with conspiracy thinking.

Try to find out what is the impetus of the AGW denial/dismissal.

Probably a response to the ill-informed talking points about "doing your part" to make a difference. To a conspiracist, this sounds like a ploy to get the lemmings to voluntarily lower their living standards. But that isn't how the economy works anyways. Or, conversely, the realization that you don't have that much control over the effect of your economic activity after a level of indirection or two.

Or maybe a reaction to specific policy ideas like carbon tax? Here at least there is an argument: price-demand inelasticity of electricity, heat, transportation is a real economic force that has to be fixed structurally. Doubts over whether the money is used to actually fix the problem (fossil fuel energy economy), i.e. just raising the price of energy without maintaining an alternative.
Title: Re: How do you argue with (libertarian) climate change deniers?
Post by: Mr. Beagle on January 12, 2019, 02:37:31 PM
I have found that the libertarian denial is usually resistance to the idea that collective action must be taken. I have had denier friends come around to the Michael Bloomberg argument, which is that rational business types will insure their homes and businesses against risks with far lower probability than climate change. Once they get out of the conspiracy bubble then the facts matter.

Florida elected an avowed Trumpist Republican Governor, Ron DeSantis, but after a disastrous autumn of hurricanes and "red tide," he surprised everyone by making some big environmental moves his first week of office, while still dissing climate change scientists:

Quote
As a candidate, Ron DeSantis toed a line on climate change, promising to prioritize the environment and acknowledge the problems posed by sea rise without bowing to “the church of the global warming leftists.”

On Thursday, Florida’s newly anointed Republican governor put his words to action, announcing plans to open a new resiliency office as part of a sweeping environmental rollout that includes an extra $1 billion for Everglades restoration and water cleanup — without mention of climate change or carbon emissions.

https://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/environment/article224231225.html
Title: Re: How do you argue with (libertarian) climate change deniers?
Post by: John Albert on January 12, 2019, 04:17:11 PM
Probably a response to the ill-informed talking points about "doing your part" to make a difference. To a conspiracist, this sounds like a ploy to get the lemmings to voluntarily lower their living standards. But that isn't how the economy works anyways. Or, conversely, the realization that you don't have that much control over the effect of your economic activity after a level of indirection or two.

Which is actually a good argument against libertarianism, in favor of using governmental authority to correct systemic problems that individuals and markets can't otherwise address on their own.
Title: Re: How do you argue with (libertarian) climate change deniers?
Post by: Quetzalcoatl on January 13, 2019, 01:02:31 PM
I have found that the libertarian denial is usually resistance to the idea that collective action must be taken.

I guess that's where the rubber meets the road for libertarians. They really are a priori opposed to the idea that anything beyond defense and police might require, or even benefit from, collective action. I guess that's why they switch between those options. Nope, the climate is not warming. Ok, it's warming, but humans are not responsible. It's warming, but it's not going to be so bad. Whatever it takes to maintain the desired conclusion that collective action is not necessary.
Title: Re: How do you argue with (libertarian) climate change deniers?
Post by: Quetzalcoatl on January 13, 2019, 01:03:52 PM
Probably a response to the ill-informed talking points about "doing your part" to make a difference. To a conspiracist, this sounds like a ploy to get the lemmings to voluntarily lower their living standards. But that isn't how the economy works anyways. Or, conversely, the realization that you don't have that much control over the effect of your economic activity after a level of indirection or two.

Which is actually a good argument against libertarianism, in favor of using governmental authority to correct systemic problems that individuals and markets can't otherwise address on their own.

I agree. I support some libertarian ideals and ideas, but not others. So I would not consider myself a libertarian.
Title: Re: How do you argue with (libertarian) climate change deniers?
Post by: Captain Video on January 13, 2019, 02:03:27 PM
I think the fact that they are libertarians has nothing to do with the fact they are also climate change deniers and you should argue with them the same as you would any science deniers.

Title: Re: How do you argue with (libertarian) climate change deniers?
Post by: John Albert on January 13, 2019, 08:25:04 PM
Probably a response to the ill-informed talking points about "doing your part" to make a difference. To a conspiracist, this sounds like a ploy to get the lemmings to voluntarily lower their living standards. But that isn't how the economy works anyways. Or, conversely, the realization that you don't have that much control over the effect of your economic activity after a level of indirection or two.

Which is actually a good argument against libertarianism, in favor of using governmental authority to correct systemic problems that individuals and markets can't otherwise address on their own.

I agree. I support some libertarian ideals and ideas, but not others. So I would not consider myself a libertarian.

I agree with most libertarian ideals about the rights and liberties of individuals, so long as they don't create a public hazard or infringe on the rights of others. But the libertarians' regressive ideas about economics and civics are a total and complete deal-breaker as far as I'm concerned.


I think the fact that they are libertarians has nothing to do with the fact they are also climate change deniers and you should argue with them the same as you would any science deniers.

I think the difference is that some libertarian AGW deniers might tend to employ certain kinds of arguments particular to their political leanings.
Title: Re: How do you argue with (libertarian) climate change deniers?
Post by: Billzbub on January 14, 2019, 04:14:02 PM
I predict that it will be very difficult to get past the denialist sentiment that all climate science is done by scientists who rely on global warming for their pay checks.  If they show that global warming isn't happening, then their grants will dry up, so they "adjust" all the data to make it seem like the planet is warming when it is not.  To me, this is the trickiest denialist tactic to counter because it seems so plausible to them and cannot easily be countered by providing more information about the scientific consensus.
Title: Re: How do you argue with (libertarian) climate change deniers?
Post by: John Albert on January 14, 2019, 05:55:43 PM
I predict that it will be very difficult to get past the denialist sentiment that all climate science is done by scientists who rely on global warming for their pay checks.  If they show that global warming isn't happening, then their grants will dry up, so they "adjust" all the data to make it seem like the planet is warming when it is not.  To me, this is the trickiest denialist tactic to counter because it seems so plausible to them and cannot easily be countered by providing more information about the scientific consensus.

It's tied into the same old anti-intellectual far right conspiracy theory that regards all of academia as a network of Big Government-subsidized liberal think tanks created to bolster the Liberal Agenda, a.k.a "Destroying America." 
Title: Re: How do you argue with (libertarian) climate change deniers?
Post by: Mr. Beagle on January 15, 2019, 09:32:31 AM
I predict that it will be very difficult to get past the denialist sentiment that all climate science is done by scientists who rely on global warming for their pay checks.  If they show that global warming isn't happening, then their grants will dry up, so they "adjust" all the data to make it seem like the planet is warming when it is not.  To me, this is the trickiest denialist tactic to counter because it seems so plausible to them and cannot easily be countered by providing more information about the scientific consensus.

It's tied into the same old anti-intellectual far right conspiracy theory that regards all of academia as a network of Big Government-subsidized liberal think tanks created to bolster the Liberal Agenda, a.k.a "Destroying America."

There is also innumeracy here. The difference between "small conspiracy" (e.g., two guys plotting) and "grand conspiracy" (every climate scientist plotting) is the factorial increase in relationships where you have to maintain "trust against a lie." One break in the chain and the conspiracy falls apart. This is why attempts at grand conspiracy eventually fail, or (more commonly) never were in the first place.
Title: Re: How do you argue with (libertarian) climate change deniers?
Post by: Ah.hell on January 15, 2019, 11:49:00 AM
Probably a response to the ill-informed talking points about "doing your part" to make a difference. To a conspiracist, this sounds like a ploy to get the lemmings to voluntarily lower their living standards. But that isn't how the economy works anyways. Or, conversely, the realization that you don't have that much control over the effect of your economic activity after a level of indirection or two.

Which is actually a good argument against libertarianism, in favor of using governmental authority to correct systemic problems that individuals and markets can't otherwise address on their own.

I agree. I support some libertarian ideals and ideas, but not others. So I would not consider myself a libertarian.
Funny, that's why I call myself a libertarian. Really, its because I generally support the ideology while not really supporting a lot of the specific ideas. 

There is a legit argument to be had over what should and can be done regarding global warming there is not a legitimate argument over whether its happening nor whether human activity is the driving factor.  I think there was some debate on that matter say, 15 to 30 years ago.  To be generous, 10 years ago.  Anyrate, I still think the only reason to debate a denier is to sway the audience, the deniers aren't going to listen. 
Title: Re: How do you argue with (libertarian) climate change deniers?
Post by: Mr. Beagle on January 15, 2019, 12:20:57 PM
Thus the fatal flaw of libertarianism, which is that in every case I have seen, it is selective toward those things that "I" want to be libertarian about while having no problem restricting "your" rights. Best example is Rand Paul, who characterizes himself as libertarian while opposing women's rights to liberty over their own bodies.
Title: Re: How do you argue with (libertarian) climate change deniers?
Post by: Soldier of FORTRAN on January 15, 2019, 12:32:09 PM
It falls short for me, too.  Like, I was raised right-wing.

I went from Republican to Libertarian because Political Conservatism is ridiculous.

I went from Libertarian to DIY (mostly left-leaning) because Libertarianism is pointlessly constraining.  It's fully adequate if you're two fur traders standing in the middle of the woods in the 1600s exchanging furs, though.

(
These days I tend to think we need some kind of 'systems' framework.  View the world as a holistic system of systems.  Focus on two aspects of the global system:)
Title: Re: How do you argue with (libertarian) climate change deniers?
Post by: Ah.hell on January 15, 2019, 02:23:49 PM
Thus the fatal flaw of libertarianism, which is that in every case I have seen, it is selective toward those things that "I" want to be libertarian about while having no problem restricting "your" rights. Best example is Rand Paul, who characterizes himself as libertarian while opposing women's rights to liberty over their own bodies.
IMHO, this is true of every political ideology and especially parties.  To single out libertarians as not always living up to their ideals, seems odd. 
Title: Re: How do you argue with (libertarian) climate change deniers?
Post by: Harry Black on January 15, 2019, 02:47:15 PM
What confuses me is that libertarianism seems to be more prescriptive of the method that we use to achieve certain goals, but it provides no real cohesive framework as to what those goals should be.
I believe this is why we see libertarians so far spread along the left/right spectrum.
If all you agree about is that you kind of like a particular philosophical approach to solving problems, but agree that it is not appropriate to all or even most problems (and disagree so widely among the group as to which problems those are), then perhaps you should look at a political movement with a bit more meat on it and just quietly rejoice whenever the best answer to a given problem turns out to be the one that gives you good feels?

I really am a big believer in going issue by issue with a strong feel for where you want society to go and then just looking up to see where you happen to have ended up label wise.

The nebulous idea of 'more freedom' seems really pointless because there are other philosophies that will give you the specific kinds of freedoms you may want anyway but may or may not find that legislation and regulation is the best way to get it for you.

When I go to a restaurant, I am a diner, not a 'forker' (hurhur) because then Im fucked when I get soup. As a diner I can just use a spoon.
Title: Re: How do you argue with (libertarian) climate change deniers?
Post by: Quetzalcoatl on January 15, 2019, 03:27:22 PM
I think libertarianism is perfectly logical. Its defining feature is the non-aggression principle (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-aggression_principle). But I dont think such a simple formula is enough to build a society, or can be absolute. What about children? What about people wanting to commit suicide?

Like you Harry Black, I am also a supporter of judging each issue individually.
Title: Re: How do you argue with (libertarian) climate change deniers?
Post by: Soldier of FORTRAN on January 15, 2019, 03:41:35 PM
My big break with Libertarianism was a 50:50 split between their views on economics and on government.

'Freedom' is sufficiently economic that it requires minding the average person's well being.  And the level of organization and coercion required is (de facto) a state.  Accept either of these and you're mutually exclusive with mainstream American Libertarianism. 

The economic logic of scrip, slavery, irresponsible waste disposal, etc. is impeccable.  It's as impeccable today as it was in our history.  It's as impeccable here as it in the developing world.

Companies which lobby against labor activism here simply murder activists in the developing world.  Companies which lobby against environmental activism here simply murder them in the developing world.

Shit like that. 
Title: Re: How do you argue with (libertarian) climate change deniers?
Post by: Ah.hell on January 15, 2019, 03:43:47 PM
This sounds to me like holding libertarians to a higher standard than others.  A bit like saying, I'm not a progressive because I don't think more government interference is always the right answer.  I like to think approach each issue individually but tend to come at from a default of, more freedom is probably better.  Sure, there are idealogues but every ideology has idealogues and practical types. 

Granted, I judge commies as basically all being ideologues so there's that.

My big break with Libertarianism was a 50:50 split between their views on economics and on government.

'Freedom' is sufficiently economic that it requires minding the average person's well being.  And the level of organization and coercion required is (de facto) a state.  Accept either of these and you're mutually exclusive with mainstream American Libertarianism. 

The economic logic of scrip, slavery, irresponsible waste disposal, etc. is impeccable.  It's as impeccable today as it was in our history.  It's as impeccable here as it in the developing world.

Companies which lobby against labor activism here simply murder activists in the developing world.  Companies which lobby against environmental activism here simply murder them in the developing world.

Shit like that. 
I have no idea what any of this means.  I suspect its a bit of a strawman though.  You can of course find libertarians who argue for a stateless society, I don not think they would be considered the mainstream of American libertarianism though. 
Title: Re: How do you argue with (libertarian) climate change deniers?
Post by: Soldier of FORTRAN on January 15, 2019, 03:50:09 PM
Libertarianism's main branch is the Republican branch.  "Taxes are theft," types.  Just to have something to call it, I'll call it right-libertarian.

My point is that people who want to get rid of the FDA, for example, would quickly discover why the FDA was created in the first place.  The venture's mere folly.  If successful, it'd be an act of self-harm.  This is typical of right-libertarian positions on government.  The framework prescribes self-harm with no actual upside.

Title: Re: How do you argue with (libertarian) climate change deniers?
Post by: Captain Video on January 15, 2019, 07:49:30 PM
Libertarianism's main branch is the Republican branch.  "Taxes are theft," types.  Just to have something to call it, I'll call it right-libertarian.

My point is that people who want to get rid of the FDA, for example, would quickly discover why the FDA was created in the first place.  The venture's mere folly.  If successful, it'd be an act of self-harm.  This is typical of right-libertarian positions on government.  The framework prescribes self-harm with no actual upside.

Thats a Conservative in Libertarian clothing who most likely voted Trump and is not at all the "Main Branch" of Libertarians who most likely voted for Johnson.  If you must have something to call them you can call them Libertarian leaning Republicans. They don't really lean that far and mostly use it as an excuse to get what they want like guns.

The problem is that "libertarian" is a political philosophy with a million different flavors as well as a political party based on many different ideas.  You can have an underlying philosophy with an acceptance that it may not be the best in every situation. Too many people seem to think a Libertarian in charge equals Ayn Rand.

EDIT: shit, I forgot where this thread was, we are turning this into a for/against Libertarian thread again.

To bring this back around I'm going to double down that arguing climate change with a libertarian is no different that arguing climate change with anyone else. If they bring their political philosophy into the argument they are incorrect to do so. Just dismiss it,  It has no bearing on the topic at all.
Title: Re: How do you argue with (libertarian) climate change deniers?
Post by: Quetzalcoatl on January 17, 2019, 03:36:19 PM
I suppose libertarian climate change deniers are not that different from other climate change deniers. But in my experience, climate change deniers tend to come almost exclusively from the libertarian or conservative camp.

I'm fully aware that the left has its fair share of denialism as well, I have even argued against it on this very forum if I'm not mistaken. It just tends not to be climate change.
Title: Re: How do you argue with (libertarian) climate change deniers?
Post by: Ah.hell on January 17, 2019, 03:58:51 PM
I suppose libertarian climate change deniers are not that different from other climate change deniers. But in my experience, climate change deniers tend to come almost exclusively from the libertarian or conservative camp.
I think there's pretty clear ideologic reasons for that.  If you're inclined not to want to see the government do more stuff, you'd naturally be inclined to avoid seeing things that seem to require government doing more stuff. 
Title: Re: How do you argue with (libertarian) climate change deniers?
Post by: Captain Video on January 19, 2019, 11:01:42 AM
I suppose libertarian climate change deniers are not that different from other climate change deniers. But in my experience, climate change deniers tend to come almost exclusively from the libertarian or conservative camp.

I'm fully aware that the left has its fair share of denialism as well, I have even argued against it on this very forum if I'm not mistaken. It just tends not to be climate change.

Are your libertarian friends religious? When I bump into a science denying libertarian, religion is usually the actual culprit.
Title: Re: How do you argue with (libertarian) climate change deniers?
Post by: Quetzalcoatl on January 19, 2019, 07:57:59 PM
I suppose libertarian climate change deniers are not that different from other climate change deniers. But in my experience, climate change deniers tend to come almost exclusively from the libertarian or conservative camp.

I'm fully aware that the left has its fair share of denialism as well, I have even argued against it on this very forum if I'm not mistaken. It just tends not to be climate change.

Are your libertarian friends religious? When I bump into a science denying libertarian, religion is usually the actual culprit.

No, not religious. People here generally aren't religious. If I'm not mistaken, even in the US, libertarians are the least religious political demographic.
Title: Re: How do you argue with (libertarian) climate change deniers?
Post by: Gig on January 28, 2019, 12:58:10 PM
In order to argue, or to “get through to” somebody, or pretty much discuss anything, you have to define what it is you are even discussing. Even the term “climate denier” is meaningless without the definition.

It’s also a terrible way to start the conversation by insulting your opponent, and labeling them a climate denier is like starting off calling someone a racist.  The conversation is not going to go well after that. And if your true purpose is to try and change their mind, starting off by making sure their mind is completely closed against anything you have to say, it’s a terrible way to begin.

If I started my post by calling everyone an idiot, pretty much anything I say after that isn’t going to make any difference at all.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: How do you argue with (libertarian) climate change deniers?
Post by: Ah.hell on January 28, 2019, 01:17:30 PM
(click to show/hide)
Blah blah blah.....

If I started my post by calling everyone an idiot, pretty much anything I say after that isn’t going to make any difference at all.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Wait, are you calling me an idiot! >:D

Actually, I tend to agree with this.  As I may have mentioned, I'd start by getting them do define their position and tell you what they would need to convince them they are wrong.  You can quickly figure out if its even possible to change their mind. 

Title: Re: How do you argue with (libertarian) climate change deniers?
Post by: Soldier of FORTRAN on January 28, 2019, 01:25:16 PM
Reminds of that Carnegie quote, "no one ever wins an argument."
Title: Re: How do you argue with (libertarian) climate change deniers?
Post by: Billzbub on January 28, 2019, 02:23:13 PM
Reminds of that Carnegie quote, "no one ever wins an argument."

I think we should have CarbShark and bachfiend argue about the veracity of this statement to see how true it really is.
Title: Re: How do you argue with (libertarian) climate change deniers?
Post by: arthwollipot on January 28, 2019, 09:22:48 PM
Reminds of that Carnegie quote, "no one ever wins an argument."

I think we should have CarbShark and bachfiend argue about the veracity of this statement to see how true it really is.

Oh god no. Please, no.
Title: Re: How do you argue with (libertarian) climate change deniers?
Post by: bachfiend on January 28, 2019, 11:18:05 PM
Reminds of that Carnegie quote, "no one ever wins an argument."

I think we should have CarbShark and bachfiend argue about the veracity of this statement to see how true it really is.

Oh god no. Please, no.

You don’t ‘win’ an argument by making strawman arguments.  You don’t ‘win’ arguments by ascribing more claims to a person who is arguing something different to what you’re arguing.

To give a recent example.  I argued that ‘they’ should not be used to refer to single identified persons of readily ascertainable gender, and that if it’s considered desirable to have a nongendered 3rd person singular pronoun, then one should be invented.  And you stated that you use the ‘singular they’ so as not to have to offend someone who’d prefer ‘he’ or ‘she’ not to be used, eventually mentioning transgender and non-binary gender persons.

My point is that the overwhelming majority of people want to be referred to as either ‘he’ or ‘she.’  Using ‘they’ just in case will offend more people than you’ll placate.  If you know that a person is transgender, then that person will almost certainly have a preferred gender - so use the appropriate pronoun for that gender.  If the person is of non-binary gender, you could use the pronoun preferred by that person.  Or you could just not use a pronoun at all, repeating the person’s name whenever necessary (which is what I do whenever I don’t know the person’s gender).

You ‘win’ arguments only in your own mind and only after you’ve applied the principle of charity and ascribed nothing more to the other person’s argument than what is actually being made.
Title: Re: How do you argue with (libertarian) climate change deniers?
Post by: Beef Wellington on January 28, 2019, 11:34:29 PM
Reminds of that Carnegie quote, "no one ever wins an argument."

I think we should have CarbShark and bachfiend argue about the veracity of this statement to see how true it really is.

Oh god no. Please, no.

You don’t ‘win’ an argument by making strawman arguments.  You don’t ‘win’ arguments by ascribing more claims to a person who is arguing something different to what you’re arguing.

To give a recent example.  I argued that ‘they’ should not be used to refer to single identified persons of readily ascertainable gender, and that if it’s considered desirable to have a nongendered 3rd person singular pronoun, then one should be invented.  And you stated that you use the ‘singular they’ so as not to have to offend someone who’d prefer ‘he’ or ‘she’ not to be used, eventually mentioning transgender and non-binary gender persons.

My point is that the overwhelming majority of people want to be referred to as either ‘he’ or ‘she.’  Using ‘they’ just in case will offend more people than you’ll placate.  If you know that a person is transgender, then that person will almost certainly have a preferred gender - so use the appropriate pronoun for that gender.  If the person is of non-binary gender, you could use the pronoun preferred by that person.  Or you could just not use a pronoun at all, repeating the person’s name whenever necessary (which is what I do whenever I don’t know the person’s gender).

You ‘win’ arguments only in your own mind and only after you’ve applied the principle of charity and ascribed nothing more to the other person’s argument than what is actually being made.

Ah, here they goes again...
Title: Re: How do you argue with (libertarian) climate change deniers?
Post by: bachfiend on January 29, 2019, 03:48:19 AM
Reminds of that Carnegie quote, "no one ever wins an argument."

I think we should have CarbShark and bachfiend argue about the veracity of this statement to see how true it really is.

Oh god no. Please, no.

You don’t ‘win’ an argument by making strawman arguments.  You don’t ‘win’ arguments by ascribing more claims to a person who is arguing something different to what you’re arguing.

To give a recent example.  I argued that ‘they’ should not be used to refer to single identified persons of readily ascertainable gender, and that if it’s considered desirable to have a nongendered 3rd person singular pronoun, then one should be invented.  And you stated that you use the ‘singular they’ so as not to have to offend someone who’d prefer ‘he’ or ‘she’ not to be used, eventually mentioning transgender and non-binary gender persons.

My point is that the overwhelming majority of people want to be referred to as either ‘he’ or ‘she.’  Using ‘they’ just in case will offend more people than you’ll placate.  If you know that a person is transgender, then that person will almost certainly have a preferred gender - so use the appropriate pronoun for that gender.  If the person is of non-binary gender, you could use the pronoun preferred by that person.  Or you could just not use a pronoun at all, repeating the person’s name whenever necessary (which is what I do whenever I don’t know the person’s gender).

You ‘win’ arguments only in your own mind and only after you’ve applied the principle of charity and ascribed nothing more to the other person’s argument than what is actually being made.

Ah, here they goes again...

I wouldn’t have commented if arthwollipot hadn’t libeled me.
Title: Re: How do you argue with (libertarian) climate change deniers?
Post by: Captain Video on January 29, 2019, 06:21:32 AM
Reminds of that Carnegie quote, "no one ever wins an argument."

I think we should have CarbShark and bachfiend argue about the veracity of this statement to see how true it really is.

Oh god no. Please, no.

You don’t ‘win’ an argument by making strawman arguments.  You don’t ‘win’ arguments by ascribing more claims to a person who is arguing something different to what you’re arguing.

To give a recent example.  I argued that ‘they’ should not be used to refer to single identified persons of readily ascertainable gender, and that if it’s considered desirable to have a nongendered 3rd person singular pronoun, then one should be invented.  And you stated that you use the ‘singular they’ so as not to have to offend someone who’d prefer ‘he’ or ‘she’ not to be used, eventually mentioning transgender and non-binary gender persons.

My point is that the overwhelming majority of people want to be referred to as either ‘he’ or ‘she.’  Using ‘they’ just in case will offend more people than you’ll placate.  If you know that a person is transgender, then that person will almost certainly have a preferred gender - so use the appropriate pronoun for that gender.  If the person is of non-binary gender, you could use the pronoun preferred by that person.  Or you could just not use a pronoun at all, repeating the person’s name whenever necessary (which is what I do whenever I don’t know the person’s gender).

You ‘win’ arguments only in your own mind and only after you’ve applied the principle of charity and ascribed nothing more to the other person’s argument than what is actually being made.

Ah, here they goes again...

I wouldn’t have commented if arthwollipot hadn’t libeled me.

 LOL
Title: Re: How do you argue with (libertarian) climate change deniers?
Post by: bachfiend on January 29, 2019, 06:35:54 AM
Reminds of that Carnegie quote, "no one ever wins an argument."

I think we should have CarbShark and bachfiend argue about the veracity of this statement to see how true it really is.

Oh god no. Please, no.

You don’t ‘win’ an argument by making strawman arguments.  You don’t ‘win’ arguments by ascribing more claims to a person who is arguing something different to what you’re arguing.

To give a recent example.  I argued that ‘they’ should not be used to refer to single identified persons of readily ascertainable gender, and that if it’s considered desirable to have a nongendered 3rd person singular pronoun, then one should be invented.  And you stated that you use the ‘singular they’ so as not to have to offend someone who’d prefer ‘he’ or ‘she’ not to be used, eventually mentioning transgender and non-binary gender persons.

My point is that the overwhelming majority of people want to be referred to as either ‘he’ or ‘she.’  Using ‘they’ just in case will offend more people than you’ll placate.  If you know that a person is transgender, then that person will almost certainly have a preferred gender - so use the appropriate pronoun for that gender.  If the person is of non-binary gender, you could use the pronoun preferred by that person.  Or you could just not use a pronoun at all, repeating the person’s name whenever necessary (which is what I do whenever I don’t know the person’s gender).

You ‘win’ arguments only in your own mind and only after you’ve applied the principle of charity and ascribed nothing more to the other person’s argument than what is actually being made.

Ah, here they goes again...

I wouldn’t have commented if arthwollipot hadn’t libeled me.

 LOL

You don’t have to read my comments if you don’t want to.  No one is making you read them.  The great majority of the stuff on the Internet is of absolutely no interest to me.
Title: Re: How do you argue with (libertarian) climate change deniers?
Post by: Captain Video on January 29, 2019, 07:40:55 AM
Reminds of that Carnegie quote, "no one ever wins an argument."

I think we should have CarbShark and bachfiend argue about the veracity of this statement to see how true it really is.

Oh god no. Please, no.

You don’t ‘win’ an argument by making strawman arguments.  You don’t ‘win’ arguments by ascribing more claims to a person who is arguing something different to what you’re arguing.

To give a recent example.  I argued that ‘they’ should not be used to refer to single identified persons of readily ascertainable gender, and that if it’s considered desirable to have a nongendered 3rd person singular pronoun, then one should be invented.  And you stated that you use the ‘singular they’ so as not to have to offend someone who’d prefer ‘he’ or ‘she’ not to be used, eventually mentioning transgender and non-binary gender persons.

My point is that the overwhelming majority of people want to be referred to as either ‘he’ or ‘she.’  Using ‘they’ just in case will offend more people than you’ll placate.  If you know that a person is transgender, then that person will almost certainly have a preferred gender - so use the appropriate pronoun for that gender.  If the person is of non-binary gender, you could use the pronoun preferred by that person.  Or you could just not use a pronoun at all, repeating the person’s name whenever necessary (which is what I do whenever I don’t know the person’s gender).

You ‘win’ arguments only in your own mind and only after you’ve applied the principle of charity and ascribed nothing more to the other person’s argument than what is actually being made.

Ah, here they goes again...

I wouldn’t have commented if arthwollipot hadn’t libeled me.

 LOL

You don’t have to read my comments if you don’t want to.  No one is making you read them.  The great majority of the stuff on the Internet is of absolutely no interest to me.

Why would I stop reading them, the are hilarious. Please continue.
Title: Re: How do you argue with (libertarian) climate change deniers?
Post by: Billzbub on January 29, 2019, 11:18:03 AM
Reminds of that Carnegie quote, "no one ever wins an argument."

I think we should have CarbShark and bachfiend argue about the veracity of this statement to see how true it really is.

Oh god no. Please, no.

You don’t ‘win’ an argument by making strawman arguments.  You don’t ‘win’ arguments by ascribing more claims to a person who is arguing something different to what you’re arguing.

To give a recent example.  I argued that ‘they’ should not be used to refer to single identified persons of readily ascertainable gender, and that if it’s considered desirable to have a nongendered 3rd person singular pronoun, then one should be invented.  And you stated that you use the ‘singular they’ so as not to have to offend someone who’d prefer ‘he’ or ‘she’ not to be used, eventually mentioning transgender and non-binary gender persons.

My point is that the overwhelming majority of people want to be referred to as either ‘he’ or ‘she.’  Using ‘they’ just in case will offend more people than you’ll placate.  If you know that a person is transgender, then that person will almost certainly have a preferred gender - so use the appropriate pronoun for that gender.  If the person is of non-binary gender, you could use the pronoun preferred by that person.  Or you could just not use a pronoun at all, repeating the person’s name whenever necessary (which is what I do whenever I don’t know the person’s gender).

You ‘win’ arguments only in your own mind and only after you’ve applied the principle of charity and ascribed nothing more to the other person’s argument than what is actually being made.

Wow I was just joking.  I didn't realize you would actually do it.
Title: Re: How do you argue with (libertarian) climate change deniers?
Post by: Captain Video on January 29, 2019, 11:21:54 AM
Hey, don't libel him.  >:D
Title: Re: How do you argue with (libertarian) climate change deniers?
Post by: Billzbub on January 29, 2019, 12:06:37 PM
Hey, don't libel him.  >:D

Do I look like a libelizer to you?   ::)
Title: Re: How do you argue with (libertarian) climate change deniers?
Post by: bachfiend on January 29, 2019, 03:52:13 PM
The way you argue with libertarian global warming deniers is that you address the strongest arguments they’re actually making, not the arguments you would prefer to be countering (which is just attacking straw man arguments).  And you should apply the charity principle - if you’re not sure what argument they’re making, then you should ask them - perhaps starting with ‘if I understand you, you’re saying...?’

And you ‘win’ if you can address all the arguments they’re making, and convince an independent third person that you have the better factual arguments on your side.

You won’t convince a person who is a global warming denier because of ideological reasons.  You might convince a person who is a global warming denier because of worldview reasons.  Ideologies proscribe what should be done, and are difficult to budge.  Worldviews explain how the world came to be as it is, and can be changed with new information.

Our current Australian prime minister Scott ‘stop the boats, coal is good’ Morrison is a devout Presbyterian (which rejects global warming for ideological reasons), so his concern regarding global warming is minimal at best.
Title: Re: How do you argue with (libertarian) climate change deniers?
Post by: arthwollipot on January 29, 2019, 07:51:12 PM
I wouldn’t have commented if arthwollipot hadn’t libeled me.

Presumably you're going to show evidence of such an accusation.
Title: Re: How do you argue with (libertarian) climate change deniers?
Post by: bachfiend on January 29, 2019, 09:53:15 PM
I wouldn’t have commented if arthwollipot hadn’t libeled me.

Presumably you're going to show evidence of such an accusation.

You’re libelling me when you persistently misrepresent my views in print.
Title: Re: How do you argue with (libertarian) climate change deniers?
Post by: arthwollipot on January 29, 2019, 10:32:53 PM
I wouldn’t have commented if arthwollipot hadn’t libeled me.

Presumably you're going to show evidence of such an accusation.

You’re libelling me when you persistently misrepresent my views in print.

Again, you're going to show evidence of such an accusation, right?
Title: Re: How do you argue with (libertarian) climate change deniers?
Post by: bachfiend on January 30, 2019, 12:38:47 AM
I wouldn’t have commented if arthwollipot hadn’t libeled me.

Presumably you're going to show evidence of such an accusation.

You’re libelling me when you persistently misrepresent my views in print.

Again, you're going to show evidence of such an accusation, right?

At the risk of ‘irritating’ other readers, all I’ve ever said is that ‘they’ should not be used for a single identified person of readily identified gender.  I agree that a person can use the ‘singular they’ in other circumstances if they want (see?  I use the ‘singular they’ too.  But ‘a person’ isn’t ‘a single identified person of readily identified gender’).  You’ve had me claiming things I have never said.
Title: Re: How do you argue with (libertarian) climate change deniers?
Post by: arthwollipot on January 30, 2019, 12:46:55 AM
I wouldn’t have commented if arthwollipot hadn’t libeled me.

Presumably you're going to show evidence of such an accusation.

You’re libelling me when you persistently misrepresent my views in print.

Again, you're going to show evidence of such an accusation, right?

At the risk of ‘irritating’ other readers, all I’ve ever said is that ‘they’ should not be used for a single identified person of readily identified gender.  I agree that a person can use the ‘singular they’ in other circumstances if they want (see?  I use the ‘singular they’ too.  But ‘a person’ isn’t ‘a single identified person of readily identified gender’).  You’ve had me claiming things I have never said.

So no evidence then. Libel is a serious accusation. If you can demonstrate that I have libelled you, I could go to jail. I expect a full retraction and apology.
Title: Re: How do you argue with (libertarian) climate change deniers?
Post by: Billzbub on January 30, 2019, 10:49:39 AM
I wouldn’t have commented if arthwollipot hadn’t libeled me.

Presumably you're going to show evidence of such an accusation.

You’re libelling me when you persistently misrepresent my views in print.

Again, you're going to show evidence of such an accusation, right?

At the risk of ‘irritating’ other readers, all I’ve ever said is that ‘they’ should not be used for a single identified person of readily identified gender.  I agree that a person can use the ‘singular they’ in other circumstances if they want (see?  I use the ‘singular they’ too.  But ‘a person’ isn’t ‘a single identified person of readily identified gender’).  You’ve had me claiming things I have never said.

So no evidence then. Libel is a serious accusation. If you can demonstrate that I have libelled you, I could go to jail. I expect a full retraction and apology.

You two should be senators in America.
Title: Re: How do you argue with (libertarian) climate change deniers?
Post by: Captain Video on January 30, 2019, 11:55:50 AM
I wouldn’t have commented if arthwollipot hadn’t libeled me.

Presumably you're going to show evidence of such an accusation.

You’re libelling me when you persistently misrepresent my views in print.

Again, you're going to show evidence of such an accusation, right?

At the risk of ‘irritating’ other readers, all I’ve ever said is that ‘they’ should not be used for a single identified person of readily identified gender.  I agree that a person can use the ‘singular they’ in other circumstances if they want (see?  I use the ‘singular they’ too.  But ‘a person’ isn’t ‘a single identified person of readily identified gender’).  You’ve had me claiming things I have never said.

So no evidence then. Libel is a serious accusation. If you can demonstrate that I have libelled you, I could go to jail. I expect a full retraction and apology.

You two should be senators in America.

So should you since you were the one who did the original "libeling" only to claim innocence later.  >:D

 All Arth did was comment on it which I guess is what we are waiting for bachfiend to concede or argue further.

How do you argue with (non-libertarian) libeler deniers?
Title: Re: How do you argue with (libertarian) climate change deniers?
Post by: Billzbub on January 30, 2019, 12:51:42 PM
I wouldn’t have commented if arthwollipot hadn’t libeled me.

Presumably you're going to show evidence of such an accusation.

You’re libelling me when you persistently misrepresent my views in print.

Again, you're going to show evidence of such an accusation, right?

At the risk of ‘irritating’ other readers, all I’ve ever said is that ‘they’ should not be used for a single identified person of readily identified gender.  I agree that a person can use the ‘singular they’ in other circumstances if they want (see?  I use the ‘singular they’ too.  But ‘a person’ isn’t ‘a single identified person of readily identified gender’).  You’ve had me claiming things I have never said.

So no evidence then. Libel is a serious accusation. If you can demonstrate that I have libelled you, I could go to jail. I expect a full retraction and apology.

You two should be senators in America.

So should you since you were the one who did the original "libeling" only to claim innocence later.  >:D

 All Arth did was comment on it which I guess is what we are waiting for bachfiend to concede or argue further.

How do you argue with (non-libertarian) libeler deniers?

If I was a senator I would introduce lots of Billz.
Title: Re: How do you argue with (libertarian) climate change deniers?
Post by: Beef Wellington on January 30, 2019, 01:01:25 PM
I wouldn’t have commented if arthwollipot hadn’t libeled me.

Presumably you're going to show evidence of such an accusation.

You’re libelling me when you persistently misrepresent my views in print.

Again, you're going to show evidence of such an accusation, right?

At the risk of ‘irritating’ other readers, all I’ve ever said is that ‘they’ should not be used for a single identified person of readily identified gender.  I agree that a person can use the ‘singular they’ in other circumstances if they want (see?  I use the ‘singular they’ too.  But ‘a person’ isn’t ‘a single identified person of readily identified gender’).  You’ve had me claiming things I have never said.

So no evidence then. Libel is a serious accusation. If you can demonstrate that I have libelled you, I could go to jail. I expect a full retraction and apology.

You two should be senators in America.

Art4Sen!
Title: Re: How do you argue with (libertarian) climate change deniers?
Post by: Gig on January 30, 2019, 02:06:01 PM
(click to show/hide)
Blah blah blah.....

If I started my post by calling everyone an idiot, pretty much anything I say after that isn’t going to make any difference at all.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Wait, are you calling me an idiot! >:D

Actually, I tend to agree with this.  As I may have mentioned, I'd start by getting them do define their position and tell you what they would need to convince them they are wrong.  You can quickly figure out if its even possible to change their mind.
I disagree that one can quickly figure out if it’s possible to change somebody, but that’s another argument. What I do know, from long experience, is you have to connect with another person, you have to get them to realize you understand their points, their point of view, where they are coming from, how they are thinking, if you want to be able to get through to them. The very last thing that is effective is to alienate them, anger them, or insult them. The mind snaps shut, and you have no influence on them after that.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: How do you argue with (libertarian) climate change deniers?
Post by: Gig on January 30, 2019, 02:07:40 PM
I am using my phone to post, and something seems to of gone wrong with the above commentary. I thought I was quoting in responding but there is some other weird message instead. My apologies


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: How do you argue with (libertarian) climate change deniers?
Post by: Ah.hell on January 30, 2019, 02:15:45 PM
(click to show/hide)
I disagree that one can quickly figure out if it’s possible to change somebody, but that’s another argument. What I do know, from long experience, is you have to connect with another person, you have to get them to realize you understand their points, their point of view, where they are coming from, how they are thinking, if you want to be able to get through to them. The very last thing that is effective is to alienate them, anger them, or insult them. The mind snaps shut, and you have no influence on them after that.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I do not disagree with you, I think what we clearly agree on, is you have to understand their position before you can hope to convince them they are wrong.  When you start off by calling them "deniers" you will immediately put them on the defensive. 

Perhaps I was unclear though.  What I mean, is that if you can get them to tell you what evidence would change there mind, you can pretty quickly figure out if its even possible to do so.  They may set the bar so high as to be essentially impossible or more likely, they may not even know what could convince them. 
Title: Re: How do you argue with (libertarian) climate change deniers?
Post by: bachfiend on January 30, 2019, 02:22:49 PM
I wouldn’t have commented if arthwollipot hadn’t libeled me.

Presumably you're going to show evidence of such an accusation.

You’re libelling me when you persistently misrepresent my views in print.

Again, you're going to show evidence of such an accusation, right?

At the risk of ‘irritating’ other readers, all I’ve ever said is that ‘they’ should not be used for a single identified person of readily identified gender.  I agree that a person can use the ‘singular they’ in other circumstances if they want (see?  I use the ‘singular they’ too.  But ‘a person’ isn’t ‘a single identified person of readily identified gender’).  You’ve had me claiming things I have never said.

So no evidence then. Libel is a serious accusation. If you can demonstrate that I have libelled you, I could go to jail. I expect a full retraction and apology.

You libelled me, and I expect damages, to the order of the damage caused.  Something in the range of one penny.
Title: Re: How do you argue with (libertarian) climate change deniers?
Post by: bachfiend on January 30, 2019, 02:34:40 PM
(click to show/hide)
I disagree that one can quickly figure out if it’s possible to change somebody, but that’s another argument. What I do know, from long experience, is you have to connect with another person, you have to get them to realize you understand their points, their point of view, where they are coming from, how they are thinking, if you want to be able to get through to them. The very last thing that is effective is to alienate them, anger them, or insult them. The mind snaps shut, and you have no influence on them after that.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I do not disagree with you, I think what we clearly agree on, is you have to understand their position before you can hope to convince them they are wrong.  When you start off by calling them "deniers" you will immediately put them on the defensive. 

Perhaps I was unclear though.  What I mean, is that if you can get them to tell you what evidence would change there mind, you can pretty quickly figure out if its even possible to do so.  They may set the bar so high as to be essentially impossible or more likely, they may not even know what could convince them.

As I’ve noted before, the way you argue with libertarian global warming deniers is that you have to understand what arguments they’re using, and address them not some other arguments you’d prefer to counter.  If you do that, you’re engaging in strawman arguments, and not following the principle of charity in giving the other person the benefit of the doubt.

If you’re uncertain as to what the other person is arguing, then ask for clarification.

You will hardly ever convert another person if an opinion is adopted because of idelogical reasons.  You ‘win’ in arguments if you can convince another independent person that you have the better factual arguments.  Your aim should be to convince other people who were ‘on the femce’ that global warming is happening, that it’s largely caused by humans, that unmitigated it’s likely to be dire, and that it’s worth doing something about it to prevent it happening.
Title: Re: How do you argue with (libertarian) climate change deniers?
Post by: Ah.hell on January 30, 2019, 05:14:59 PM
I do not disagree with you, bachfiend.......on this subject.

Generally good advice for any kind of discussion where you are trying to convince people of something.  First step, figure out what they actually believe rather than what you think or wish they believe.  Its often very difficult to do and I find that I fail at more than I'd like. 
Title: Re: How do you argue with (libertarian) climate change deniers?
Post by: arthwollipot on January 31, 2019, 12:01:24 AM
I wouldn’t have commented if arthwollipot hadn’t libeled me.

Presumably you're going to show evidence of such an accusation.

You’re libelling me when you persistently misrepresent my views in print.

Again, you're going to show evidence of such an accusation, right?

At the risk of ‘irritating’ other readers, all I’ve ever said is that ‘they’ should not be used for a single identified person of readily identified gender.  I agree that a person can use the ‘singular they’ in other circumstances if they want (see?  I use the ‘singular they’ too.  But ‘a person’ isn’t ‘a single identified person of readily identified gender’).  You’ve had me claiming things I have never said.

So no evidence then. Libel is a serious accusation. If you can demonstrate that I have libelled you, I could go to jail. I expect a full retraction and apology.

You libelled me, and I expect damages, to the order of the damage caused.  Something in the range of one penny.

Again, I expect either evidence of the accusation, or a full apology and withdrawal. I will enter into no further discussion.
Title: Re: How do you argue with (libertarian) climate change deniers?
Post by: bachfiend on January 31, 2019, 03:37:23 AM
I wouldn’t have commented if arthwollipot hadn’t libeled me.

Presumably you're going to show evidence of such an accusation.

You’re libelling me when you persistently misrepresent my views in print.

Again, you're going to show evidence of such an accusation, right?

At the risk of ‘irritating’ other readers, all I’ve ever said is that ‘they’ should not be used for a single identified person of readily identified gender.  I agree that a person can use the ‘singular they’ in other circumstances if they want (see?  I use the ‘singular they’ too.  But ‘a person’ isn’t ‘a single identified person of readily identified gender’).  You’ve had me claiming things I have never said.

So no evidence then. Libel is a serious accusation. If you can demonstrate that I have libelled you, I could go to jail. I expect a full retraction and apology.

You libelled me, and I expect damages, to the order of the damage caused.  Something in the range of one penny.

Again, I expect either evidence of the accusation, or a full apology and withdrawal. I will enter into no further discussion.

Good.
Title: Re: How do you argue with (libertarian) climate change deniers?
Post by: Quetzalcoatl on March 23, 2019, 02:59:11 PM
I'm at this again. This libertarian guy is not denying warming, perhaps even not that humans are behind it. He criticizes what he calls the "doomsday rhetoric". I pointed to forecasts about what it might be like, and he dismissed it as just "forecasts and guesses". I'm like, what does it take?
Title: Re: How do you argue with (libertarian) climate change deniers?
Post by: Tassie Dave on March 23, 2019, 04:41:32 PM
I've given up trying to convince my Climate Change Denying boss. He is too far down the rabbit hole. His laptop is full of graphs, charts and information he has gathered from his right-wing websites.

I have tried arguing, but he won't be convinced and he gets quite heated if you push him too far. Me and my co-worker purposely push him too far  ;)

He also has a problem with me being an atheist and socialist. He is a church goer and into far-right politics (He loves Trump) (No surprise that he's from rural north Queensland)
and he also is a career miner with an engineering degree who goes looking for minerals with a fucking dowsing rod. I pissed my self laughing the first time I saw him do that  ;D Now I just shake my head.
Thankfully we use actual real science to determine where we mine.

He is a nice guy and I get on well with him, but I can't help niggling him when I see a news story on climate change  ;)
We have found that our passionate love of sports is a safer topic to talk about at work.
Title: Re: How do you argue with (libertarian) climate change deniers?
Post by: daniel1948 on March 23, 2019, 04:55:08 PM
I am always sorely tempted to tell climate change deniers (and fans of medical quackery) that they are fucking morons. I do my best to keep quiet, and in my old age I manage that better than I used to do. Climate change denialism is a form of religion. Evidence and logic are not going to convince the die-hard deniers. But putting the evidence out there can help the lurkers come to logical conclusions.

Libertarianism is the political philosophy for people who don't believe in sharing or social responsibility. They want to be able to keep all the money they make for themselves. They say that spending on public works and public safety should be local and voluntary, but none of them will ever contribute. They hope everyone else will and they can get a free ride. Libertarianism is radical selfishness elevated to a political philosophy. They deny climate change because they don't want to be taxed to clean up their own mess. They'd rather suck up all the Earth's resources and leave a wasteland behind them for the following generations.
Title: Re: How do you argue with (libertarian) climate change deniers?
Post by: Captain Video on March 23, 2019, 05:53:28 PM
I am always sorely tempted to tell climate change deniers (and fans of medical quackery) that they are fucking morons. I do my best to keep quiet, and in my old age I manage that better than I used to do. Climate change denialism is a form of religion. Evidence and logic are not going to convince the die-hard deniers. But putting the evidence out there can help the lurkers come to logical conclusions.

Libertarianism is the political philosophy for people who don't believe in sharing or social responsibility. They want to be able to keep all the money they make for themselves. They say that spending on public works and public safety should be local and voluntary, but none of them will ever contribute. They hope everyone else will and they can get a free ride. Libertarianism is radical selfishness elevated to a political philosophy. They deny climate change because they don't want to be taxed to clean up their own mess. They'd rather suck up all the Earth's resources and leave a wasteland behind them for the following generations.

none of that accurately describes this libertarian who does not deny climate change nor do any of my close libertarian friends.

Are we now going to go back to the blanket generalizations about libertarians on this forum about what villains we must all be in your eyes?



Title: Re: How do you argue with (libertarian) climate change deniers?
Post by: Captain Video on March 23, 2019, 05:56:52 PM
I'm at this again. This libertarian guy is not denying warming, perhaps even not that humans are behind it. He criticizes what he calls the "doomsday rhetoric". I pointed to forecasts about what it might be like, and he dismissed it as just "forecasts and guesses". I'm like, what does it take?

It actually sounds to me like you are making progress. At least the initial denial part is gone.
Title: Re: How do you argue with (libertarian) climate change deniers?
Post by: Quetzalcoatl on March 24, 2019, 12:12:14 PM
I am always sorely tempted to tell climate change deniers (and fans of medical quackery) that they are fucking morons. I do my best to keep quiet, and in my old age I manage that better than I used to do. Climate change denialism is a form of religion. Evidence and logic are not going to convince the die-hard deniers. But putting the evidence out there can help the lurkers come to logical conclusions.

Libertarianism is the political philosophy for people who don't believe in sharing or social responsibility. They want to be able to keep all the money they make for themselves. They say that spending on public works and public safety should be local and voluntary, but none of them will ever contribute. They hope everyone else will and they can get a free ride. Libertarianism is radical selfishness elevated to a political philosophy. They deny climate change because they don't want to be taxed to clean up their own mess. They'd rather suck up all the Earth's resources and leave a wasteland behind them for the following generations.

none of that accurately describes this libertarian who does not deny climate change nor do any of my close libertarian friends.

Are we now going to go back to the blanket generalizations about libertarians on this forum about what villains we must all be in your eyes?

I agree with you. We should not simply assume that people of other political persuasions are necessarily evil or malicious.

I have a fairly good friend who is libertarian(ish). He is also a skeptic. He is not at all like daniel1948 describes what he should be like.