I posted a link to a WASHINGTON TIMES article discussing the alarmist aspects and possible connections to those that swallow whole the anthropocentric aspect of global warming in the writing of the most recent “National Climate Assessment.”
This is the response I got from a friend:
- RT — 13 Federal agencies and hundreds if not thousands helped prepare that report, and you’re puking over 1 “Obama official”, who in all likelihood is now a “Trump official.” Grasping at straws. Again.
First, the idea that Trump replaces people in total is silly. But that red-herring aside, this comment led to a typical conversation where I ask for a dialogue, and insults and appeals to authority are the mainstay. I wish to share it as it may illuminate your conversations and the directions it should and maybe even should not go. (I may edit slightly the conversation and add media for presentation value, FYI.) Here is my first response — I will emphasize my repeated requests for dialogue:
- They have. So called “Experts” on both sides. A helluva lot more on the global warming side.
This is a reference to the “consensus” many people believe because of the brainwashing of their minds by the media. This “consensus” has been disproved soo many times by specialist/scientists/statisticians to the laity. I ignored this discussion as I have PROVEN this to him time-and-time-again in the past. Instead, I want a dialogue. My response:
I am trying to separate RT from his reliance on others to do his heavy lifting. You see, in the end, he comes to my Facebook wall to merely “tell the world” he like committing logical fallacies:
An argument from authority, (argumentum ab auctoritate), also called an appeal to authority, or argumentum ad verecundiam is a form of defeasible argument in which a claimed authority’s support is used as evidence for an argument’s conclusion.
RT responds. And as you will see, a dislike for Republicans and Trump seem to always enter the conversation… stuff totally unrelated to my continued plea for dialogue:
I explain later in my responses why I quoted Larry Elder, but here is my response followed by his:
- (ME) like Larry Elder says, “facts are like kryptonite to liberals.
- (ME) so you don’t want to discuss one idea that’s confirmed in your mind global warming.
He simply responded “no.” He said he has been-there-done-that. But he really has not. All his conversations are like these. He thinks he has made a point using facts to support generalization, but in reality just state his personal opinion in a way HE FEELS is like a dialogue. He feels like he has shared a deep meaning when in fact he has only meandered into unrelated territories.
In the previous conversation I was driving and using a hands free app. So the following is now when I am home, AND ONE SHOULD NOTE that I am about to show RT how to take positions in the negative and positive modes:
RT’s response? No response:
- It’s hysterical how the far right dismisses science out of hand. Trump dismissed it without even perusing the reports. He doesn’t read anything. And his 28-32%’s will continue to fall on their swords for him. Sharpened yours lately? I know it gets a lot of use.
What his response failed to do is offer any evidence. Which I will note in the following response to how the Left and the media refuse to report about the falling temperatures in the past two years showing that the sun (not CO2) is the main driver of climate, and why one should be concerned about the cold and not warming.
Not only that, but the man that programmed most of the satellites NASA uses to measure temperature (he is one of about three people that can do such a task) shows the same:
But remember, facts don’t matter. Just Trump Derangement Syndrome does. No worry about what evidence supports or refutes a position, just name the Donald and act as you brought information for others to be able to digest in supporting the claims initially stated further up in the conversation.
In fact, since we got out of the BIG ICE-AGE, temperatures have been fairly stable: