# I'm sick of this Global Warming! **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [August 16, 2013, 6:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-sick-of-this-global-warming/666440 "2013-08-16T18:57:18Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 1\ **Showing post:** 4217
**Author:** ![FXMastermind](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fxmastermind/32/7289_2.png) [@FXMastermind](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FXMastermind)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2015, 3:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-sick-of-this-global-warming/666440/4217 "2015-04-24T15:51:30Z")
Since it’s child play to simply quote, (the software here even includes a link to the source), when I see somebody lie about something, rather than just quote, it gives the appearance of deception, not honesty. > [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](#): > > So I asked him to simply define the construct HOWEVER HE WANTED TO, and even given total control over how to frame the scientific question, he was unable and unwilling to do so, There’a always this moment where I wish to simply show a lie to be exactly that, **but this means you are entangled with a liar** , and there is no payoff in showing them to be making something up. It simply won’t matter. We know from research that a lie that enforces a belief is not countered with facts. In fact, a factual counter usually just makes somebody believe more, and adds a layer of “if it wasn’t true, then why are you trying so hard to show it’s not true?”. It’s a Catch 22, trying to correct or defend against lies people type out online. Here’s the exchange, in which he used the term “the AGW argument”, what he now refers to as “the construct”. > [@Facts won't change your mind about anything](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/facts-wont-change-your-mind-about-anything/710293/53): > > Okay, let’s try this. If your position is that facts matter to you, please identify for me one or two facts that you find supportive of the AGW argument. > [@Facts won't change your mind about anything](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/facts-wont-change-your-mind-about-anything/710293/55): > > You have to explain, and I mean in a scientific way, what YOU mean by “[the AGW argument](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_AGW_argument&action=edit&redlink=1)”. His response was > [@Facts won't change your mind about anything](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/facts-wont-change-your-mind-about-anything/710293/57): > > So, that’s a no, then? You don’t seem a very good ambassador of the land of the Unbiased Fact Evaluator. At which point I could tell it was a game, not an honest attempt at understanding anything, certainly not what facts would cause one to question the AGW theory. It’s quite similar to the specious argument that AGW simply means the planet is warming. This level if idiot “science” is impossible to engage with, it’s more religion than science. It’s exactly why asking somebody to define their terms is greeted with all kinds of nonsense in return, rather than a simple clear scientific explanation. My response in the thread was quite clear. > [@Facts won't change your mind about anything](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/facts-wont-change-your-mind-about-anything/710293/61): > > It’s an example of exactly how “the debate” stalls, and turns into muddied waters. I know exactly what I mean by my terms, and offer clear definitions and links to sources. When YOU ask a question about something, it’s on you to explain what you are asking about. > > This blanket refusal to simply state your case, when asked directly, seems to be a hallmark of the disaster side of the debate. Obviously I can do the heavy lifting, and describe the entire list of issues at the heart of the debate, I’ve done it multiple times. It doesn’t make any difference. (more at the link) It didn’t matter, and we see the same idiot point brought up here again. It’s why countering ignorance with facts is almost useless. --- _[View the full topic](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-sick-of-this-global-warming/666440)._