Actually, I’m pointing out that your side has been unable to CONVINCE enough people to change the status quo. I’m sure there are a thousands of excuses as to why your side has been unable to CONVINCE enough fence-sitters, and deniers, to come into your fold, but those excuses aren’t going to change the status quo.
Is your goal to actually change how AGW is handled, or is it your goal to spend even more time explain why you can’t? Your choice.
History will see the obvious. Scientists warned about, and were concerned about climate change. Scientists from all over the world. And history will see that American right wing politicians denied it.
I am sure, to the future octopoid paleontologists, they will look like just like the other human fossils that can be found in huge number towards the end of the Anthropene epoch.
Thanks for the advice. But you were asked in post #94 nine days ago what it would take to convince you, personally, to support the stated positions on climate change. You declined to answer and nine days later it seems safe to assume that the real answer is that nothing would convince you. So your vague – and incorrect – advice is completely useless. Evidence is useless when beliefs – like yours – are not evidence-based. It’s also incorrect since I showed you in polls that the majority are, in fact, now convinced about the basics, and every country in the world signed on to the Paris accord, though the US alone pulled out. You ignored this, just like you ignored the question in #94.
You appear to know nothing about the subject and keep harping, falsely but persistently, like a one-trick pony, on the fact that not enough people are convinced. I honestly have no idea at all what you hope to accomplish by this now-tired old tactic. The real problem, as I noted in post #178, is that not enough Republicans claim to be convinced – and it really is overwhelmingly Republicans – and that’s because they have a political advantage from the well-funded denier sector as long as they can maintain that fiction, even when they’re smart enough to know better. That says nothing good about your side, or the prospects that evidence alone can ever sway your side as long as denialism keeps the money rolling in and keeps buying them votes, while the planet continues to deteriorate. And that, my friend, pretty much sums up how history will judge you and your side.
My choice is to point out that this is about the 4th time that you ignore that the polls and studies I cited show that more people are being convinced. Your choice to ignore it is not my problem, what is important is that others learn how pathetic the replies from the opponents to this issue are nowadays.
Anyhow, I know that in the past even scientists at the SDMB have said that I do get it, even that bit about where Greenland is.
What you mean is that not enough voters have been willing to pay attention to the science on this issue. There are a number of reasons for that, including deliberate disinformation campaigns by science deniers. Trying to chalk the whole phenomenon up to a mere failure of persuasion on the climate-science side is merely passing the buck.
Actually, it appears that plenty of the “opposition” (i.e., organized science deniers) are indeed quite convinced by the facts of climate science. (Look, for example, at efforts by fossil-fuel companies to take advantage of opportunities offered by reductions in Arctic ice, which would be a completely idiotic move if they expected the Arctic ice to come back any time soon.)
But the science deniers are not letting their conviction of the scientific facts stand in the way of their profit-motivated efforts to keep foisting science denial on ignorant, lazy and gullible members of the public.
Except that you keep on refusing to tell us what “change” of “tactics/strategy” you are supposedly “advising”. Even though you’ve been repeatedly asked to tell us:
Basically, doorhinge, you keep telling us that you’re determined to ignore all arguments to convince you, and then criticizing the arguments for not being sufficiently convincing. “It’s all YOUR fault that you haven’t persuaded me even though I’ve already made up my mind not to listen to anything you say!”
(post shortened)
Several people have tried to hijack this thread. Why should I help them? My position hasn’t changed. I’m saying that the MMCO2IE side hasn’t been able to CONVINCE enough of their opposition to change their minds on the issue. If the MMCO2IE side had been successful, this thread wouldn’t have been necessary, would it.
(post shortened)
That’s great. More people are being convinced. And yet you have failed to achieve your goal. I’m suggesting that a change of tactics, or strategy, may help your achieve your goal.
(post shortened)
I’ve said what I meant to say. Your interpretation of what you wish I had said is your interpretation. If you want to have both sides of the conversation, why do you need a public forum to do so?
p.s. Why are you quoting me saying something I did not say?
Yeah, what I do works, and I should stop…
:rolleyes:
Or, keep going like the suffragettes, the end prohibition guys, the anti tobacco people, the build sewers to prevent cholera, etc. that had to spent decades pointing what needed to be done until change takes place.
What “tactics or strategy” are you “suggesting” that we “change” to in order to be more effective, in your view? In other words, what “tactics or strategy” are you saying would be more effective in convincing you? Once again, what you keep failing to address here are those same previously-repeated questions and comments:
Why do you keep refusing to address the above-repeated questions and comments? Your constantly repeated criticisms to the effect of “It’s all YOUR fault that you haven’t persuaded me even though I’ve already made up my mind not to listen to anything you say!” are evading those questions, not answering them.
I didn’t quote you saying something you did not say. If you feel I did, though, you are certainly free to report it to the mods.
Aybe is shills like ox news (among many others) would stop spreading bullshit, it would be much easier to convince folks that the non-bullshit is actually true.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
? = “Maybe if shills like Fox News”?
I feel your pain, brother.
Fox, Ox, they both produce a lot of shit.
What percent of the blame do you put on Republican politicians who call climate change a hoax? And what do you propose we do about them?
All well and good, but the issue at hand here has the potential to be of far greater concern than those other things. Our inaction could possibly spell the loss of many more species on Earth than just those annoying h.s. critters. You can play the long game until you look up and see a few seconds left on the clock and no timeouts left. What do you do then?
Of course, we may even be past that point. The damage done in recent decades may already be irrecoverable, short of malthusian extremes. If that were the case, what should we do, if no action can lead to any real benefit and the most deprecable course cannot yield notably greater loss?
Yep, should have edited before posting.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
As history shows then we all lose, even the crowd in the stands. As history shows too, then the perpetrators that funded or organized the inaction are taken to the wall and shot. And many times even the ones in power that supported that inaction will get it. Now, since I think we are getting better in many fronts what I expect in this case is not that drastic, The people will vote the rascal deniers out of power and like the tobacco industry make the fossil fuel industry pay for the new industries that will help educate humanity to better mitigate and/or adapt to the changes.
The problem here is that even worse scenarios can take place, the longer we allow leadership that ignores the issue the worse it will be. Looking at history we can see that we either get busy changing and adapting to the changes or get busy dying.
Because I think we will more likely do the former, it will then be the turn of better aware citizens to get better leadership.
The point is not just for all, but also to say to the misleaders in industry and governments to be wise and selfish. Yes, selfish, in the sense that they should realize that if their hides are not on the line, the ones of their descendants will be.
Except for when something unexpected happens and radiation is released in to air/ground/water where it is expensive and challenging to contain:
Three Mile Island
Chernobyl
Hanford
Fukushima
(and probably others I’m not aware of)
Funny you should mention tobacco. The big players were paddled firmly on the butt, yet they are still around. Have you been to a grocery store lately? They still sell cigarettes. The big players are drawing in billions in net revenue. It looks very much like no one was really put up against the wall. It was all justice theatre.
What about British Petroleum, who did a very fine job fouling the gulf? Was anyone punished for that? Exxon got their liability for fouling Prince William Sound reduced to a little more than a rounding error relative to their overall revenue, simply outlasting the plaintiffs by dragging the case on for most of two decades. And Taylor Energy only recently settled a case related to a persistent leak that is now greater in volume than Deepwater Horizon.
So far, it looks like no one is truly being put up against the wall. Perhaps ever.