WaPo: How to persuade people that climate change is real

 Originally posted on 11.29.17, updated on

11.30.17:

Just read something that shows a principle in action.  Hopefully, it may cause a lite to go on in someone's intellect.  What is the principle?  Let the quote provide the answer:

The terminology is not meant to engage argument, as political discussion should, but rather to end it, by putting its objects beyond the pale of discussion. --- Is Tolerance A Virtue, American Greatness

The left doesn't want discussion.  They want you to "shut up".


The original post follows:

This one got me to click on it because I want to see if this article can convince me that AGW is real.

Let us look at the "persuasion":

1. The messenger matters.  Uh-huh.  So, I am to be convinced by WHO says it, as opposed to what is being said.  So, if an authority says that X is not X, and Y is not Y, and 2 plus 2 equals 5, then by golly, I am convinced.
2. People respond to appeals based on their values.  Question:  What the hell does values have to do with whether or not climate change is real?  Are we talking values or climate change?
3. Educating people about the science can make a difference.  Comment:  Except that is not what they are doing.  What is being advocated instead is an appeal to authority, as mentioned in number 1 above (an especially useful tactic to use on conservatives, it is claimed.)  Once again:  what the hell does tactics have to do with whether or not climate change is real?
4. Emphasizing risk may spur people to action.  Yes, of course.  What is wanted is action.  But again, what does this have to do with it being real or not?  Nobody seems to be interested in the truth of the matter.  Is climate change real or not?????  No, we cannot discuss that.  Action is what is required!  Something must be done.  Boy, that really convinces me.
5. Affirming the power of the people.  Once again, this has nothing to do with the topic at hand.

All of these suggestions lend nothing to the actual argument.  Instead, the attempt seems to be directed towards diversion from the topic rather than in actually discussing it.  The discussion then veers off into irrelevant topics.

What is the truth?  Truth doesn't matter.  But they sure want to win the argument all right.  This ought to be rephrased into how to win an argument by not having the argument.  Just talking about the weather may make more sense than this type of argument.

All the smart people are for this type of argument, it is claimed.  But if they really fall for this, how smart can they be?

There seems to be people who get it.  Read the comments.

If this persuades me of anything, it is that the people advocating for AGW are anti-science, not pro-science.  For if they were for science, they would be talking science, not everything else but science.