How to argue with a global warming "skeptic"


Indeed. But they’ll do it anyway. Cos it’s fun.

When the only tool you have is a massive big sledgehammer, everything looks like a nut. Or something like that.


Doesn’t seem like Much fun :sunglasses:


it’s fun for the mad scientists. The rest of us, maybe not so much.


OK, call me a skeptic if you like. I’m pretty skeptical about most things.


I’m not really convinced of this either. Very hard to prove. Of course, no shortage of government-funded studies purporting to do so. You pay money for a certain result, and you’re bound to get that result.


We did this.


I think the changes required would result in a significant reduction in the quality of life were used to. No one is willing to reduce their own SoL and no one will vote to do so

Why do policies that are supposed to regulate vehicle emissions end up favoring SUVs and crossovers


Unfortunately, the politicians think that too. Not exactly surprising, since a degree in History or Russian Literature doesn’t really prepare you for complex engineering challenges.


There are , no doubt , also instances of the “Gore Machine” , exploiting that to the detriment of the message, giving the “skeptics” opportunity to argue .
All we need is @fredsmith now .:joy:


There is no point in arguing with a global warming skeptic. They’re ignorant by choice for power/political reasons.

Just ask them to replace ‘climate skeptic’ with ‘physics skeptic’ and ask them how stupid they sound when they say that out loud.


I don’t think anyone calls themselves climate skeptics. Like physics, we put climate models and theories to the test. They haven’t produced the results claimed. No one would take a physics theory seriously if they fail to produce the theorized results.


What sounds more stupid is when people pretend to know what the climate will be like in 10, 20, 50 or 100 years. It’s political on both sides, but one side is a little more dishonest.


You are dishonest.
You ignore the facts and say we don’t know it will be hotter and we don’t know that we are causing global climate change.

I’ve shown you the graphs which show the steadily increasing CO2 you ignore the facts , you ignore the physics because SOMEHOW you are MORE QUALIFIED to make a judgement based on your POLITICAL views. You would make a fine communist. Or maybe a President of the USA?

If a mechanic said that your engine was overheating due to the radiator being broken would you question him , even if he and thousands of other expert mechanics around the world showed you the data about the rest of the engine being fine but the radiator being cracked ?
And indeed when you did an experiment with a cracked radiator and put water into it the water leaked out. So water leaks from a cracked radiator.
When they tell you that your car will break down on the highway with 99.999% likelihood because the engine will overheat would you still drive that car on the highway ?

But you think increased CO2 from man made activities is not causing global warming because ?!? I assume you’ve done the experiments yourself proving that Arrhenius was wrong and that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas ?

if the quantity of carbonic acid increases in geometric progression, the augmentation of the temperature will increase nearly in arithmetic progression.


This article is relevant to this thread, and a good read. Unfortunately the people who are in most need of reading something like this, will read the first paragraph and decide it’s intellectual crap ie. The Dunning-Kruger Effect.


Al Gore spoiled the party.

I read that piece. “I’d explain it to you but I don’t want to bore you.” is a pretty common tactic used by ‘experts’. Ockham’s Razor takes effect when this happens.



So are you saying the vast majority of climate scientists are wrong about global warming ?

Or that experts are usually wrong cos they…are…ehh…experts?

Make some bloody sense will you.


I firmly believe Dunning and Kruger deserve a Nobel prize. I think most people intuitively know what they discovered, but they were brave enough to elucidate it and identify precise mechanisms. In current year, I reckon they would have been crucified.

As for experts:

“An expert is one who knows more and more about less and less until he knows absolutely everything about nothing.”

It used to be that experts were polymaths: they knew a lot about other things as well as their specialist subjects. The problem is that climate scientists don’t, but they’re being put in the position of handing out advice. They’re not qualified to do that.


Arrhenius was the first person to put together a coherent theory for interglacial warming being related to CO2.
He also theorised a whole lot of other stuff in chemistry and helped set up the Nobel prizes. You could probably call him a polymath. He applied his scientific knowledge across the fields of chemistry , biology, physics and geology.

I’m pretty sure he’d say we should reduce carbon dioxide emissions if we want to reduce greenhouse effects and the vast majority of climate scientists are saying the same thing.


I’m sure they are. And they’re right. But they don’t know how to that. Nor do the politicans. Hence the endless hand-wringing meetings.


Nobody knows 100% what to do.

But we have to try rather than wringing our hands and saying ‘its useless…’.

We didn’t cure childhood infectious diseases by giving up and not inventing vaccines for instance.

We haven’t discovered for sure the cause of Alzheimer’s not have we figured out the treatment yet after decades and billions spent going down wrong avenues but recent news says we could be close.