How To Talk To Warmist Trolls

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
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?
 
Last edited by a moderator:

mynym

Banned
Banned
Denier. :mad:

How to talk to them, the same way you talk to anyone... honestly try to see things from their perspective. That might involve communication, empathy and all that. After all, the deeper the empathy and the seeing things from their side and so forth... the greater your ability to tear their view of the world apart if you disagree with them.
 

scombrid

Senior Member.
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'm not going to read that entire thread.

Do you have any supporting documentation for this claim? e.g. select statements in context that demonstrate that slight skepticism of "anthropomorphic" climate change gets abused as "denial"?

The tone of your post doesn't seem to be that of a skeptic but more one of an advocate.

BTW: It is "anthropogenic".
 

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
I'm not going to read that entire thread.

Do you have any supporting documentation for this claim? e.g. select statements in context that demonstrate that slight skepticism of "anthropomorphic" climate change gets abused as "denial"?

The tone of your post doesn't seem to be that of a skeptic but more one of an advocate.

BTW: It is "anthropogenic".
Thanks. It went downhill from about 8 or 9 onwards I think. Deniers denying they were deniers which must prove they were deniers otherwise they couldn't be denying things could they?

Jazzy won't mind me singling him out for trollism, I am sure he can take it, so I refer you to a classic:

https://www.metabunk.org/threads/ho...-denier-and-then-what.1255/page-10#post-59030

Not that I am complaining, I am just interested in 'how to talk to warmist trolls', without necessarily having to agree or be consigned to oblivion :)
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Sausalito

Active Member
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 think accuracy, rather than offensiveness, might be more of an issue with the term "troll." I can see the pretense of this thread backfiring. Frankly, I initially wondered if you were trolling on the other thread, as you seemed to be ignoring a preponderence of evidence. But I am now convinced that you were not "trolling" proper, but that some rather different dynamic is at play. Perhaps you are "trolling" yourself? ;)
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
I think accuracy, rather than offensiveness, might be more of an issue with the term "troll." I can see the pretense of this thread backfiring. Frankly, I initially wondered if you were trolling on the other thread, as you seemed to be ignoring a preponderence of evidence. But I am now convinced that you were not "trolling" proper, but that some rather different dynamic is at play. Perhaps you are "trolling" yourself? ;)
Nah, that's too convoluted for me. :)
 

joelb79

Active Member
First off; how you talk should be not to create names for them like trolls and plaster that all over subject titles and then speak as if your point of view is more superior to anyone elses'. Then it's best not to argue what you think the other group finds offensive; let them tell you what is offensive instead. Thirdly, you should stop trying to use these forums to find out what conspiracies you can get everybody who debunks to believe. I think most of the things you post these days you do not even believe yourself, yet you find them interesting. So what you do is post them here and try to stir things up. Its like your playing some game with these forums; where only you decide winners and loosers; a game played in your head where nobody knows the score and only you win. I've had you on block before oxy. I unblocked you. I cannot see much of a change in behavior over a 4 month period. This thread title could be offensive. I also hardly see a point to this thread unless your point is to stir people up by calling them names.
 

Hama Neggs

Senior Member.
The term "troll" has come to mean various things, none of which resemble the original meaning. Mostly it has come to mean "someone-who-adamantly-believes-something-different-than-I-believe-and-posts-about-it. Few people seem to realize that it actually means someone who doesn't really have any beliefs, but is just posting to screw with people and trigger responses. An internet "troll" also has nothing to do with creatures under bridges.
 
Last edited:

Jazzy

Closed Account
Jazzy won't mind me singling him out for trollism, I am sure he can take it, so I refer you to a classic:
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/ho...-denier-and-then-what.1255/page-10#post-59030
Not that I am complaining, I am just interested in 'how to talk to warmist trolls', without necessarily having to agree or be consigned to oblivion.
I'm not a troll about this.

I appreciate that we have to make our way to the future from where we are right now, and that means taking stock right now. If we don't, then someone else's future is going to be that much harder. Denying the need to take stock halts any progress before it even begins. Then the maths (of the physics) will carry itself out.

Once we can see what our abilities amount to, we can do the best we can with what we have. The job is doable right now, but a day will come, I suspect, when it becomes beyond our abilities.

This is apt to shorten my temper, must admit. But right now, I repeat, I believe it's well within our abilities.

We have shunned the natural world for the whole of our civilization. Farming is a good example; we destroy existing life in all its diversity to replace it with a single set of clones supported by power. We aren't even aware of the existence of some of this life. It is very stupid. We have to unlearn this right now. We are shitting in our drinking water, literally, and metaphorically.

Life created the atmosphere we accept as having been 'always there'. Well, it wasn't 'always there'. Our illusions of technical superiority over Nature must be dispelled, or we will be our own extinction event..
 
Last edited by a moderator:

80hd

New Member
The term "troll" has come to mean various things, none of which resemble the original meaning. Mostly it has come to mean "someone-who-adamantly-believes-something-different-than-I-believe-and-posts-about-it. Few people seem to realize that it actually means someone who doesn't really have any beliefs, but is just posting to screw with people and trigger responses. An internet "troll" also has nothing to do with creatures under bridges.

To state it a little differently, trolling means (if you're worried about being correct anyway) to try to catch people up in a flame war or otherwise cause hate and discontent by posting inflammatory, flamebait, or simply controversial material for that specific purpose.

What it has unfortunately come to mean (as Hama said above) is simply out of laziness... people started calling those with differing opinions trolls as in "OMG YOU CAN'T BE THIS STUPID, YOU MUST BE A TROLL"... and it has unfortunately stuck as a perversion of the original saying... it's the same old escalation of insults, yesterdays nuke is today's small-arms.



 
Last edited by a moderator:

Hama Neggs

Senior Member.
To state it a little differently, trolling means (if you're worried about being correct anyway) to try to catch people up in a flame war or otherwise cause hate and discontent by posting inflammatory, flamebait, or simply controversial material for that specific purpose.

What it has unfortunately come to mean (as Hama said above) is simply out of laziness... people started calling those with differing opinions trolls as in "OMG YOU CAN'T BE THIS STUPID, YOU MUST BE A TROLL"... and it has unfortunately stuck as a perversion of the original saying... it's the same old escalation of insults, yesterdays nuke is today's small-arms.




Yes, and same with the term "shill". Shill actually means to falsely advocate FOR something. Now the terms "shill" and "troll" have come to mean the same thing- that you are someone who has been paid to lie or debunk. I guess also that means "debunker" has come to mean the same as the other two. It's sort-of become a lowest common denominator game with CTers. Everything is simple for them: "The government lies!" and if you don't agree on every manifestation of that they perceive, you're the enemy.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
Yes, and same with the term "shill". Shill actually means to falsely advocate FOR something. Now the terms "shill" and "troll" have come to mean the same thing- that you are someone who has been paid to lie or debunk. I guess also that means "debunker" has come to mean the same as the other two. It's sort-of become a lowest common denominator game with CTers. Everything is simple for them: "The government lies!" and if you don't agree on every manifestation of that they perceive, you're the enemy.
Yes that is likely correct but lets not forget that Conspiracy Theorist is also a derogatory term started by the CIA. Denier has similar overtones. We grin and bear it. Quid pro qo. :)
 

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
What term would they prefer, "truther"? What?
I think of myself as a debunker as I try to sift through the bunk, wherever it originates. But I am not into PC names per se and at least people know where you stand. I think we are all CTists to some extent. You seem very open minded Ham and ready to question things no matter where they come from.

All I expect is for my POV to be judged on its merit and be treated like a normal human being and not like someone who has a screw loose because I question authority. Make no mistake I have been called a shill etc for calling out bunk in Conspiracy Theories.

A rose is a rose by any other name and an Oxy is an Oxy no matter what else anyone decides to call me.:)
 

Hama Neggs

Senior Member.
I think of myself as a debunker as I try to sift through the bunk, wherever it originates. But I am not into PC names per se and at least people know where you stand. I think we are all CTists to some extent. You seem very open minded Ham and ready to question things no matter where they come from.

All I expect is for my POV to be judged on its merit and be treated like a normal human being and not like someone who has a screw loose because I question authority. Make no mistake I have been called a shill etc for calling out bunk in Conspiracy Theories.

A rose is a rose by any other name and an Oxy is an Oxy no matter what else anyone decides to call me.:)

OMG... (that's an expression I just made up- it means "Oh My God" :cool:) We ALL like to "question authority". It's just the bizarre notion of CTers that simply because we question their claims, that we must believe everything the government says.

Cheers!

PS: Seriously... what do they want to be called? Anybody know?
 

JRBids

Senior Member.
To state it a little differently, trolling means (if you're worried about being correct anyway) to try to catch people up in a flame war or otherwise cause hate and discontent by posting inflammatory, flamebait, or simply controversial material for that specific purpose.

What it has unfortunately come to mean (as Hama said above) is simply out of laziness... people started calling those with differing opinions trolls as in "OMG YOU CAN'T BE THIS STUPID, YOU MUST BE A TROLL"... and it has unfortunately stuck as a perversion of the original saying... it's the same old escalation of insults, yesterdays nuke is today's small-arms.


^^^^SHILL!! ;)
 

JRBids

Senior Member.
OMG... (that's an expression I just made up- it means "Oh My God" :cool:) We ALL like to "question authority". It's just the bizarre notion of CTers that simply because we question their claims, that we must believe everything the government says.

Cheers!

PS: Seriously... what do they want to be called? Anybody know?

"The Awakened, Enlightened Ones."
 

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
I honestly don't think it matters too much. It is the contextual meaning and inflection that is either derogatory or not. It may be worth looking at what the term Conspiracy Theory actually means in contemporary terms. It started out as derogatory and intended to marginalise people but is that the case still. To some extent it undoubtedly is but different people perceive it in different ways now.

Also undoubtedly 'conspiracy theory' encompasses a vast range of theories, some are extremely marginal and 'out there' like the lizard people theory but some are quite mainstream like some 9/11 theories but even there, some are very tenuous like the 'no plane theories'. Disinformation is a well documented means of contaminating sound information to degrade it. And also 'alternate theories', which contest 'mainstream theories' can also be classified wrongly as conspiracy theories. It's complexity is part of the puzzle.

A good example of trolling and derogatory use of the term Conspiracy Theorist is ModerateGOP's posts IMO, i.e making assertions which he cannot even be bothered to check out himself and rubbishing the argument by rubbishing the people making the argument as 'Conspiracy Theorists. NB I haven't even looked at the link.

https://www.metabunk.org/threads/fake-cnn-broadcasts.2351/
Can someone go through this and figure out if any of what the "FriendsofSyria" blog is saying is true?

http://friendsofsyria.co/2013/09/01/cnn-caught-staging-news-segments-on-syria-with-actors/

I mean besides from the fact that they are conspiracy theorists, I highly doubt any of this is true!
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Boston

Active Member
I'm guilty, I can be pretty hard on folks who express a blatant lack of comprehension of the sciences involved. But then again I've a pretty extensive background in the sciences so its easy to scoff at some of the more obvious errors I see coming up in some peoples arguments.

In a nut shell its really pretty simple, one of the major waste products of the combustion process is CO2 which has been known for quite a long time to be a greenhouse gas. Arrhenious I think it was who even predicted the forcings should this gas ratio be increased in the planets atmosphere and that was some time way back in the late 1800s. The simple reality is we burn a lot of fossil fuels and the end result of that we've dramatically increased atmospheric concentrations of CO2.

That alteration in the atmospheric chemistry is the basic issue. People who argue the GHG angle just don't have the education to realize how rock solid the science is behind the concepts. Its basic optical physics that CO2 is a GHG, its a physical characteristic of the size and shape molecule to reflect certain wave lengths. Kinda the way some cameras can "see" thought desert sand for instance and some can't. Its all in the wave lengths used to make the observation.

In any case Rapid global climate shift is the term more accurately applied these days but the root problem is the alterations in the atmospheric chemistry we've made by burning all these fossil fuels.

its a very basic problem but people do seem to dream up the craziest stuff trying to ignore the very real dangers of inaction.

course then they go off on what action but thats a whole other story
 

George Hammer

New Member
As a "warmist troll" I'll answer. How to talk to me. First of all I do put some stock in the opinion of scientists who study this for a living. That being said the first and foremost thing you should bring to the table is credible research. For example, if someone is going to claim the costs of action now outweigh what we will pay/suffer in the future, they better bring some pretty hefty research to the table. The research is out there and readily available that AGW will have huge effects on the globe. The cost proposals have also been calculated and off the top of my head the worst calculation says for USA a gdp loss of 2 percent. Google's study on this said delaying the switch to green energy would decrease gdp because other countries would beat USA at it on the other hand.

How to talk to a warmist troll? Bring a ton of data to the table from reliable sources showing the costs/benefit analysis. The majority I've seen say we should be switching now as it is more beneficial to us.

Data. That's where it's at.
 

Jazzy

Closed Account
the worst calculation says for USA a gdp loss of 2 percent.
Is that data? What does it include? Damage from tornado events, perhaps another New Orleans event or 911 event, more fighting in the Middle East, more climbing of escalatory ladders, what?

Or does it mean in present-day terms?

Data will never be quantified adequately because we can't predict the future. But we know we're in for "interesting times", in the Chinese sense.

The "data"* is already with us, as Boston has already intimated. Some of us will never be able to interpret it, George. That's the problem.

* It's the light force.
 

George Hammer

New Member
Is that data? What does it include? Damage from tornado events, perhaps another New Orleans event or 911 event.

Hi jazzy

I'm new here good to meet you first off.

It seems I wasn't very clear with what I was talking about. My quote about 2% of gdp wasn't about how much global warming was going to cost us. It was a comment on how much it would COST us to fight it. There were different methods, different maximums for Atmospheric carbon, etc but the worst one I came across said it would cost us 2% of our gdp by 2030 I believe.

Please bear in mind this isn't the cost of climate change. We have some studies for that and they show extreme cost (admittedly not in my time - 80 yrs from now) but are probably a lot of guesses. What I'm posting about is the cost of ACTING on climate change. I'm not sure how to put images in the post so I'm attaching a chart showing the costs of limiting carbon as calculated by MIT with different proposals. The only conclusion people can reasonably come to is that the costs of acting now are way lower than the costs of inaction. Something scientists have been saying for a while, yet some people have managed to see a huge global conspiracy in something as bland as basic economic research such as this.

See attached graphic. Not sure how to add it to my post.
 

Attachments

  • ClimatePolicyGDP.jpg
    ClimatePolicyGDP.jpg
    15.3 KB · Views: 215

Jazzy

Closed Account
Hi jazzy I'm new here good to meet you first off.
And you.

What I'm posting about is the cost of ACTING on climate change.
Sorry. I got the bit between my teeth and ran.

Not sure how to add it to my post.
If while in creation or edit mode you drift your pointer over the icons above your posting a small pop-up explains them. The image pop-up is to the right of the smiley. Enter the URL of the image, click the insert button and all is done.
 

Jason

Senior Member
Please bear in mind this isn't the cost of climate change. We have some studies for that and they show extreme cost (admittedly not in my time - 80 yrs from now) but are probably a lot of guesses. What I'm posting about is the cost of ACTING on climate change
So are you proposing the cost of "acting" on climate change now is more expensive than not doing anything at all. Where are you getting this number "80 yrs" from, in reference to what not doing anything will cost us in the future?
 

Jason

Senior Member
How to talk to a warmist troll? Bring a ton of data to the table from reliable sources showing the costs/benefit analysis. The majority I've seen say we should be switching now as it is more beneficial to us
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/EPAactivities/economics/scc.html
The rulemakings directly targeting carbon dioxide emissions have projected notable climate-related benefits for society. For example, the projected net present value of carbon dioxide mitigation benefits over the next forty years from three vehicle rulemakings was estimated to range from $78 billion to $1.2 trillion ($2010), depending on which of the four SCC estimates were used (i.e., the average SCC at 5, 3, and 2.5 percent and the 95th percentile SCC at 3 percent).
These links below break down the cost of the study above in detail. Showing cost analysis of doing nothing versus implementing CO2 reduction protocals. It also breaks down the cost of implementing these protocals for each auto maker per car.
 

Related Articles

Top