Should climate change deniers be disenfranchised?

[Costa Alegria]

Funnily enough that is exactly what acting the role of the devils advocate is...arguing a point you don't believe. I think this thread amply shows that there are not two sides to this debate but rather children who have heard big words and the adults who know what those big words mean.

Or people that think they know what big words mean but actually don't.

[Zephie]

Funnily enough that is exactly what acting the role of the devils advocate is...arguing a point you don't believe. I think this thread amply shows that there are not two sides to this debate but rather children who have heard big words and the adults who know what those big words mean.

Or people that think they know what big words mean but actually don't.

Big words make you right

[DaWoad]

Well at least you admitted it.

On a more serious note, it would actually be true that I was being the Devil's Advocate, purely because I have gone from being a complete skeptic to believing in it and acknowledging mankind's involvement and role in climate change. I just dislike any ideas that infringe on the rights of others and I am deeply fascinated as to why people would like to go to such lengths when the majority of people believe that climate change is occurring and that human activity is entirely or partly responsible for it.

What is the point of disenfranchising a minority of people who don't believe in something when the majority do? It would be like disenfranchising people that believe the Earth is flat.

We all know the majority is always right...

...right?

Always! Alles in ordenung! nothing to see here and such . . .

but, more seriously, unless you have very good reason to doubt scientific consensus. A reason that isn't simply politics wrapped in the thinnest of possible justifications (this one expert said so . . .and and and climategate!) then yes, the "majority" is right.

[Zephie]

We all know the majority is always right...

...right?

Always! Alles in ordenung! nothing to see here and such . . .

but, more seriously, unless you have very good reason to doubt scientific consensus. A reason that isn't simply politics wrapped in the thinnest of possible justifications (this one expert said so . . .and and and climategate!) then yes, the "majority" is right.

People here haven't. The consensus is. "A scientist said so, so it's true," when scientists on both side of the argument argue.

I don't flat-out deny climate change due to how humanity has fucked up the planet.
My gripe with it is the people in government who say they support it are planning to fuck US. More taxes are not going to solve the problem. So supporting global warming is supporting global governments fucking everyone over and taking more control over the guise of helping the environment, when it's quite the opposite.

[Tubbsalot]

On a more serious note, it would actually be true that I was being the Devil's Advocate, purely because I have gone from being a complete skeptic to believing in it and acknowledging mankind's involvement and role in climate change.

Not from the arguments on NSG, I'd guess.

I just dislike any ideas that infringe on the rights of others and I am deeply fascinated as to why people would like to go to such lengths when the majority of people believe that climate change is occurring and that human activity is entirely or partly responsible for it.

What is the point of disenfranchising a minority of people who don't believe in something when the majority do? It would be like disenfranchising people that believe the Earth is flat.

Because the (substantial) minority of people who don't accept that anthropogenic climate change exists are a serious voting bloc whose existence enormously hampers an effective response to the issue.

I wouldn't argue that they should be disenfranchised - but that's the argument, I suppose.

[Rubiconic Crossings V2 rev 1f]

Great...another wannabe mod.

nope, no desire to be a mod. Just been around long enough that I can tell when things start to go off the rails. Like .. . now. . .

so, 'bout that global warming.

Really? Playing the age card now? Hmmm...think I've been here longer than thee

[The Grand World Order]

Yep..I know. And guess what...many of those doctors were paid by the various industry vested interests...as has been shown time and again. Not really science but more an aid to allow industry to continue to create profit.

You just described global warming! Bravo. You did all the work for me. I have to thank you. I have extra time now to prepare my next dish.

Alas, the thing is, is that global warming deniers have been caught in the act. (TL;DR: the American Enterprise Institute is offering $10,000 to Prof. Schroeder to write a piece on global warming not being true.)

AEI is basically a pseudo-source used to make Republicans sound like they actually have sources. If global warming wasn't an issue, why would a conservative organization have to try and bribe a climatologist with ten grand to say so?

[Costa Alegria]

We all know the majority is always right...

...right?

Majority is a majority. In this case, they happen to be right.

[Rubiconic Crossings V2 rev 1f]

Funnily enough that is exactly what acting the role of the devils advocate is...arguing a point you don't believe. I think this thread amply shows that there are not two sides to this debate but rather children who have heard big words and the adults who know what those big words mean.

Or people that think they know what big words mean but actually don't.

devil's advocate

—n
1. a person who advocates an opposing or unpopular view, often for the sake of argument
2. RC Church Technical name: promotor fidei the official appointed to put the case against the beatification or canonization of a candidate

[translation of New Latin advocātus diabolī]

Collins English Dictionary - Complete & Unabridged 10th Edition

Indeed. But not people in general. As I stated - children.

[DaWoad]

Always! Alles in ordenung! nothing to see here and such . . .

but, more seriously, unless you have very good reason to doubt scientific consensus. A reason that isn't simply politics wrapped in the thinnest of possible justifications (this one expert said so . . .and and and climategate!) then yes, the "majority" is right.

People here haven't. The consensus is. "A scientist said so, so it's true," when scientists on both side of the argument argue.

scientific consensus:
http://dels-old.nas.edu/climatechange/u ... ange.shtml
http://www.ametsoc.org/POLICY/climatech ... _2003.html
http://www.aaas.org/news/press_room/cli ... tement.pdf

honestly Zephie, it exists in this field. There are only a handful of scientists who even offer rebuttals at thsi point and they tend to be funded entirely by those who profit from people not believing in or, at the very least, not acting upon climate change.

EDIT: can't really speak to the edit. I do lean more towards stateism myself and, for me, top down enforcement is preferable to hoping market forces deal with the problem before it's to late but as long as things are being done and aren't being actively hindered then I don't really care.

[DaWoad]

nope, no desire to be a mod. Just been around long enough that I can tell when things start to go off the rails. Like .. . now. . .

so, 'bout that global warming.

Really? Playing the age card now? Hmmm...think I've been here longer than thee

Yes I do kind of remember an old version of you that rather predated me from way back when. Which just means you should know better! *wags finger! really gramps *shakes head sadly*.

[Costa Alegria]

Not from the arguments on NSG, I'd guess.

A lot of people post shit on NSG that they don't necessarily believe. But most of my arguments have usually not been about the existence of climate change but about what people want to do to others.

Because the (substantial) minority of people who don't accept that anthropogenic climate change exists are a serious voting bloc whose existence enormously hampers an effective response to the issue.

Such as? Aside from the stereotypical ideas of massive corporations who sell oil etc. (there is as much money to be made out of green technologies as there is doing whatever it is enemies of environmentalists do)

I really don't see those who disbelieve the ideas of what science says as a serious threat to the global responses.

I wouldn't argue that they should be disenfranchised - but that's the argument, I suppose.

That was the whole point of the OP was whether or not

[Zephie]

People here haven't. The consensus is. "A scientist said so, so it's true," when scientists on both side of the argument argue.

scientific consensus:
http://dels-old.nas.edu/climatechange/u ... ange.shtml
http://www.ametsoc.org/POLICY/climatech ... _2003.html
http://www.aaas.org/news/press_room/cli ... tement.pdf

honestly Zephie, it exists in this field. There are only a handful of scientists who even offer rebuttals at thsi point and they tend to be funded entirely by those who profit from people not believing in or, at the very least, not acting upon climate change.

Hm I wonder why? Maybe because anyone with a differing opinion is immediately shutdown, threatened, and blackballed. But that could not be why, because the envirofascists are fair people, right?

[Ostroeuropa]

scientific consensus:
http://dels-old.nas.edu/climatechange/u ... ange.shtml
http://www.ametsoc.org/POLICY/climatech ... _2003.html
http://www.aaas.org/news/press_room/cli ... tement.pdf

honestly Zephie, it exists in this field. There are only a handful of scientists who even offer rebuttals at thsi point and they tend to be funded entirely by those who profit from people not believing in or, at the very least, not acting upon climate change.

Hm I wonder why? Maybe because anyone with a differing opinion is immediately shutdown, threatened, and blackballed. But that could not be why, because the envirofascists are fair people, right?

Source.
"HELP HELP IM BEING OPPRESSED BY THE OIL AND COAL CORPORATIONS VAST RESOURCES AND WEALTH FUNDING ENVIROMENTALIST SCIENCE!"
Your theory that people are shut down for questioning science smacks of creationist rhetoric.
You have forfeited any credibility.
A scientist who disproved either climate change or evolution would be made world famous.
And if he did the former, INCREDIBLY rich.

[Costa Alegria]

Indeed. But not people in general. As I stated - children.

So, someone that disagrees with you is a child? Makes sense. After all, sounds oddly like what I have been doing in some threads before.

[The Grand World Order]

Hm I wonder why? Maybe because anyone with a differing opinion is immediately shutdown, threatened, and blackballed. But that could not be why, because the envirofascists are fair people, right?

Looks like climatologists just get the short stick, now don't they?

[DaWoad]

scientific consensus:
http://dels-old.nas.edu/climatechange/u ... ange.shtml
http://www.ametsoc.org/POLICY/climatech ... _2003.html
http://www.aaas.org/news/press_room/cli ... tement.pdf

honestly Zephie, it exists in this field. There are only a handful of scientists who even offer rebuttals at thsi point and they tend to be funded entirely by those who profit from people not believing in or, at the very least, not acting upon climate change.

Hm I wonder why? Maybe because anyone with a differing opinion is immediately shutdown, threatened, and blackballed. But that could not be why, because the envirofascists are fair people, right?

*sigh* it's possible there's been a vast conspiracy of scientists it's just even more vastly unlikely.

[Rubiconic Crossings V2 rev 1f]

Really? Playing the age card now? Hmmm...think I've been here longer than thee

Yes I do kind of remember an old version of you that rather predated me from way back when. Which just means you should know better! *wags finger! really gramps *shakes head sadly*.

So I get cranky when the young 'uns start acting up instead of listening to those who are older and wiser. *cough*

[Zephie]

Hm I wonder why? Maybe because anyone with a differing opinion is immediately shutdown, threatened, and blackballed. But that could not be why, because the envirofascists are fair people, right?

Source.
"HELP HELP IM BEING OPPRESSED BY THE OIL AND COAL CORPORATIONS VAST RESOURCES AND WEALTH FUNDING ENVIROMENTALIST SCIENCE!"
Your theory that people are shut down for questioning science smacks of creationist rhetoric.
You have forfeited any credibility

I couldn't find anything in your reply that could have been seen as a rational thought.

[Gauntleted Fist]

So if we're going to get all up in arms about climate change, does anyone here seriously believe that governments that depend on keeping their people happy are going to seriously crack down on industrial waste in a manner that will, y'know, work?

[Biomechatronics]

No they should not be disenfranchised.

Especially since global warming is not an issue. Why people argue about such a marginal issue? So it's definitely not something people should be disenfrachised about. I think no one, ever, ought to be disenfrachised.

[Rubiconic Crossings V2 rev 1f]

Indeed. But not people in general. As I stated - children.

So, someone that disagrees with you is a child? Makes sense. After all, sounds oddly like what I have been doing in some threads before.

Would you say someone saying that touching a switched on hot ring on a hob is perfectly fine and deserves to sit at the big table?

[Ostroeuropa]

Source.
"HELP HELP IM BEING OPPRESSED BY THE OIL AND COAL CORPORATIONS VAST RESOURCES AND WEALTH FUNDING ENVIROMENTALIST SCIENCE!"
Your theory that people are shut down for questioning science smacks of creationist rhetoric.
You have forfeited any credibility

I couldn't find anything in your reply that could have been seen as a rational thought.

Well, first I asked for a source. (Which you didn't provide, so we can safely assume you pulled it out of your ass.)
Then I parodied you, so yeh, no rational thought there.
Then I pointed out that you saying there is a conspiracy makes you sound EXACTLY like a creationist.
Then I stated as a result you have lost any credibility.
Do you want to try another response or are you going to be incapable of understanding this post too?

Also, the edit.

A scientist who disproved either climate change or evolution would be made world famous.
And if he did the former, INCREDIBLY rich.

Bare in mind, the oil companies did their very best to disprove climate change. When even they concede it's probably happening, you know we're on to something.

[DaWoad]

Yes I do kind of remember an old version of you that rather predated me from way back when. Which just means you should know better! *wags finger! really gramps *shakes head sadly*.

So I get cranky when the young 'uns start acting up instead of listening to those who are older and wiser. *cough*

well now that's just terrifying. Appologize elder one, I'll just go slowly crazy now, ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn.

[Zephie]

I couldn't find anything in your reply that could have been seen as a rational thought.

Well, first I asked for a source. (Which you didn't provide, so we can safely assume you pulled it out of your ass.)
Then I parodied you, so yeh, no rational thought there.
Then I pointed out that you saying there is a conspiracy makes you sound EXACTLY like a creationist.
Then I stated as a result you have lost any credibility.
Do you want to try another response or are you going to be incapable of understanding this post too?

I still don't understand what you're rambling on about. Something about creationism conspiracies.