I used to debate with climate change deniers, but I soon realised that they weren’t interested in facts, logic or even humour. Ockham’s razor only worked for beard removal and cognitive dissonance was treated with penicillin and painkillers (my pain). When I supported my argument with data collected by NASA scientists and with any number of peer reviewed articles in leading scientific j0urnals I was trumped by a quote from a blog by a 78 year old former oil company executive that had been diagnosed with advanced Alzheimers and syphilis. Or by something Sarah Palin said.
It was as futile as explaining to a Destiny Church member that God (assuming His/Her/Their.Its existence) wasn’t seething with rage over homosexual men and that there was something not quite right about Bishop Brian living an opulent life on the tithes paid by low income families.
So I gave up and left them to it, but the debate has never been more urgent, and this article explains how to effectively debate the issues and potentially influence change.
p[This blog focuses on climate and energy issues from the perspective of science, solutions, and politics. Nothing will be more important to the future of climate and energy policy than the 2008 presidential election. And rhetorical strategy is one of my favorite subjects. So very occasionally I will focus more on rhetoric than the policy. […]/p
- Climate Change Conservatives and the Problem with Big Money (Guest Voice) (themoderatevoice.com)
- Ivar Giaever – Nobel Winning Physicist and Climate Pseudoscientist (skepticalscience.com)
- Editorial: Severe weather gives a taste of a warmer planet (newsday.com)
- A dialogue with climate sceptics (chrisriedy.me)