Bush Philosopher
New member
(I believe this is a valid question, within the rules, and deserving of an answer. A previous version of this question was removed from Yahoo Answers, perhaps because my language was immoderate. It received about 30 answers, but was removed before I could read any!)
There are a few types of climate change deniers…
1.There are those who believe it isn’t happening, or it’s not caused by Man, but have never given the matter any serious thought.
2.There are those who are unable to weigh the scientific evidence, and choose, perhaps subconsciously, to listen to the side of the argument that makes them feel best (“We couldn’t be doing this; it’s too terrible”).
3.There are those who committed to a stance a long time ago, and have not wanted to ‘loose face’ by admitting that they were wrong; while the evidence for climate change accumulated gradually.
4.And there are those who are corrupt. This group have their own reasons, usually financial, for arguing the lie; some work in, or close to, the mining or fossil fuel industries, others are receiving some sort of payment from elements within those industries.
So, can you win if you argue with any of them? Those who don’t give the matter any serious thought are not going to read or think about your arguments. The second group is unable to properly judge the value of scientific argument, the third unwilling to change their opinions no matter what the evidence, and the forth group are not going to change their stance because they are employed to deny the facts.
There is perhaps a fifth group, who might be worth arguing with; those who are willing to listen to reason, but have been influenced by the popular press and ‘shock jocks’ rather than the scientific press.
There are a few types of climate change deniers…
1.There are those who believe it isn’t happening, or it’s not caused by Man, but have never given the matter any serious thought.
2.There are those who are unable to weigh the scientific evidence, and choose, perhaps subconsciously, to listen to the side of the argument that makes them feel best (“We couldn’t be doing this; it’s too terrible”).
3.There are those who committed to a stance a long time ago, and have not wanted to ‘loose face’ by admitting that they were wrong; while the evidence for climate change accumulated gradually.
4.And there are those who are corrupt. This group have their own reasons, usually financial, for arguing the lie; some work in, or close to, the mining or fossil fuel industries, others are receiving some sort of payment from elements within those industries.
So, can you win if you argue with any of them? Those who don’t give the matter any serious thought are not going to read or think about your arguments. The second group is unable to properly judge the value of scientific argument, the third unwilling to change their opinions no matter what the evidence, and the forth group are not going to change their stance because they are employed to deny the facts.
There is perhaps a fifth group, who might be worth arguing with; those who are willing to listen to reason, but have been influenced by the popular press and ‘shock jocks’ rather than the scientific press.