It may be a slightly controversial title but I would appreciate if it could stand. It is in response to https://www.metabunk.org/threads/how-to-talk-to-a-climate-change-denier-and-then-what.1255/ which seems to have concluded the best way to talk to anyone who is in the slightest way skeptical of anthropomorphic climate change theory, is to call them 'deniers' and be abusive.
I don't think being described as a denier is any more offensive than troll when taken in context, especially when one looks at the opinions and contempt heaped on the skeptics/'deniers' by the trolls.
Let me clarify; when I refer to 'warmist trolls', I do not include all 'warmists', merely those who feel that it is ok or even preferential to abuse those who 'dare to question' the validity of the warmist science. Many instances of this are apparent in the above thread.
So how to talk to them?
It is quite difficult to talk to any troll really and often the best way to deal with them is to ignore them completely. After all, trolls do not want to discuss anything, they simply want to be abusive and beat you down but if, in the spirit of rational debate you decide to engage with them, I find that asking them 'how they envisage implementing their proposal to 'immediately abandon all use of fossil fuel', normally results in a response of 'that is unimportant... what is important is that you agree 'you' are to blame for destroying the world'.
This appears to me to be a 'useless argument' as it shows they have no answer to the problem which they perceive.
The other main flaw in the argument appears to be that they are 'in the main', uncritical or even supportive of Globalism, (or at least in support of big corporations, which means defacto support of corporate control of politicians), who, (politicians), are the only ones capable of introducing legislation necessary to curb fossil fuel usage.
So warmist trolls, help me out here, would you please stop demonizing and advocating war on the 90% or greater element of the world who really do not want to be cast back into the stone age and see civilization destroyed on the 'possibility', that it may happen anyway... some time in the future 100 years or so?
I don't think being described as a denier is any more offensive than troll when taken in context, especially when one looks at the opinions and contempt heaped on the skeptics/'deniers' by the trolls.
Let me clarify; when I refer to 'warmist trolls', I do not include all 'warmists', merely those who feel that it is ok or even preferential to abuse those who 'dare to question' the validity of the warmist science. Many instances of this are apparent in the above thread.
So how to talk to them?
It is quite difficult to talk to any troll really and often the best way to deal with them is to ignore them completely. After all, trolls do not want to discuss anything, they simply want to be abusive and beat you down but if, in the spirit of rational debate you decide to engage with them, I find that asking them 'how they envisage implementing their proposal to 'immediately abandon all use of fossil fuel', normally results in a response of 'that is unimportant... what is important is that you agree 'you' are to blame for destroying the world'.
This appears to me to be a 'useless argument' as it shows they have no answer to the problem which they perceive.
The other main flaw in the argument appears to be that they are 'in the main', uncritical or even supportive of Globalism, (or at least in support of big corporations, which means defacto support of corporate control of politicians), who, (politicians), are the only ones capable of introducing legislation necessary to curb fossil fuel usage.
So warmist trolls, help me out here, would you please stop demonizing and advocating war on the 90% or greater element of the world who really do not want to be cast back into the stone age and see civilization destroyed on the 'possibility', that it may happen anyway... some time in the future 100 years or so?
Last edited by a moderator: