I once tried to get a Climate Change true believer to explain exactly why she believed in the "theory" and all she did was shout repeatedly "its science" in a very condescending and insulting manner. Which about sums up their understanding of the topic.

They are very selective about their belief in "science" . They certainly don't believe in basic biology when it comes to CO2 being a pollutant or gender reassignment... or the development of an unborn baby in the womb.

Or try telling them that the scientific number of deaths at Chernobyl, was less than 200 - most of those caused by Soviet authorities' failure to distribute iodine tables.

I've noticed they even have a selective belief in their science of Evolution. Progressives will go on and on about evolution when they are attacking religion but they toss all their "science" out the window when evolution proves that there are in fact many fundamental differences between men and women; claiming a few thousand years of culture has shaped human nature and behavior more than their own claimed millions of years of evolution. By refusing to accept their own evolutionary science they can then continue using the power of government to try to create an equality that does not exist in human nature.

Yes. I had a global warming alarmist tell me why GW was causing blizzards and record low temperatures that winter from Omaha to Cape Cod. "It sounds counter-intuitive, but--" I realized I was hearing the words of a brainwashed man.

It's scientism. not science.

"Science falsely so-called," to cite a once-popular and authoritative book.

"It's SCIENCE(tm)!" That is intended to shut you up as their religion, their dogma, is Scientism, not science. Scientism has as much to do with science as a common American house cat has to do with sixth-century Byzantine religious art. SCIENCE(tm) is the Path, the Written Word, the Authority, and if you don't believe it you're a poopy-head. Or some other heinous being. It's just one of those things we have to accept from the True Enlightened.

So true, their understanding of "science" is more like psudo-science, really. Not proven, and most get offended when you ask them to prove it or you post proof as to debunk what they think is to be true.

ALWAYS - they put us on the defensive. The strategy of conservatives for most of a century has been to say: no, I am not racist, s3xist, greedy, intolerant, anti-science, xenophobic.

Negative messages ("X is not true", even if X is bad) are psychologically fated to be perceived as losers. Positive messages ("X is true", even if X is bad) are more powerful.

Our continued assertions that we are not racist, s3xist, greedy, intolerant, anti-science, xenophobic have met with electoral failure. Meanwhile, we conservatives are being accused of what the left actually does. It shouldn't be surprising that President Trump has been so successful; he has outraged the left by copying their aggressive style (but always as a counter-puncher!).

I challenged my environmental activist niece, trained as a political science major with no real science background, with some scientific and statistical facts about CO2. She admitted that in her echo chamber world, she had never heard such information. Did I mention she flies more miles than the rest of the family put together?

Here's to more CO2. We are still far too low by historical standards; another ice age could wipe out all life on earth. I like the idea of the Sahara Desert becoming greener (and thus cooler), providing more food for Africa. Let there be life!

The Left seems to have a talent for putting everyone else on the defensive, and they deliberately phrase their ideas in such a way that conservatives always end up saying: "X is not true, but X is certainly bad ... something needs to be done about that". From that point on, the Leftists can saddle us, put the bit in our mouths, and ride us to victory - for them.

EXAMPLE:

I'm a conservative, and I am not a racist. But I agree that racism is a bad thing, and should certainly be fought against.

Their counter-punch: You say that you are not a racist, but your denial of it proves that you have latent racist tendencies boiling within you. To prove that you care, and that you're not a racist, you must support X candidate, or Y proposals.

We counter: But X candidate supports ideas that are at odds with our Constitution, and the Y proposals are simply a cover for violating the Founder's vision for our country.

Their conclusion: YOUR country, you mean! Racist! S e x ist! H o m o phobe! Down with the Patriarchy!

My conclusion from all of this is that the Left must be defeated, not debated with. Debating a Leftist is an exercise in frustration and futility.

Agreed, its becoming increasingly clear that actual debate much less honest discussion with a Lefty/Democrat is largely fruitless.

We would win on the facts, the logic and the merits.

So the Left, cravenly but cleverly, refuse to debate/discuss at all.

The only way they can win is refuse to actually debate/discuss.

But b/c they refuse to debate/discuss they never actually win at all, they just end up chanting narratives to their base---preaching to choir so to speak.

Debating a Leftist is an exercise in frustration and futility

Truer words have never been spoken. Most leftist arguments are the equivalent of "I know you are, but what am I".

You do have to realize that Sheep and the Sheeple and assorted prey animals and prey humans have few defenses to protect themselves from the predator animals or Democrat/Leftist/Marxist Predators. Fighting back is either not an instinctual or a learned behaviour or we are conditioned to sublimate to make us docile and not fight the Democrat/Leftist/Marxist Predators when they go on a savage attack.

We who are on the conservative side of the political divide have been conditioned since entrance into Kindergarten to be respectful of authority, or at least, of dissenting opinions.

I saw a video, the other day, of a savage attack by a 20-something woman on an elderly pro-Life protester. She had struck and kicked him at least 5-6 times, before he went down, and others ... including some pro-Abortion protesters ... stepped in to stop the assault.

The day is coming ... in the not-to-distant future ... when our side will not be so accommodating to the Left.

The Left bases their arguments strictly on feelings/emotions, and thoughts/logic have absolutely nothing to do with the process. Now their handlers, the Marxist/Communists, are the opposite, they are very shrewd and devious, constantly thinking about how they can twist and distort issues so that they are always based on feelings/emotions. That is why it is so difficult not just to argue with a Leftist, but to even have a friendly communication is nearly impossible as well.

Ask them to define "racist". They'll cite a person, unsat, that is an example, not a definition. Follow up with "I don't care what you think," that'll get 'im sputtering.!

I get called "racist" or "Islamophobe" or "anti-immigrant" or whatever.

RAAAACIST! "Oh, shall I call my non-Caucasian wife for a second opinion?"

ISLAAAAAMOPHOBE! "Oh, shall I call my Sunni Muslim wife for a second opinion?"

ANTI-IMMIGRAAAANT! *Oh, shall I call my naturalized American citizen wife for a second opinion?"

Inevitably, I get the "She is not!" To which I reply "OK. Put your money where your mouth is... say, $1000 bet?"

As to climate change specifically, I've had a few successes. I remember in one class I was teaching, where I was discussing data fraud and the idea of a presenter of data always having an agenda, showing some CC-related graphs designed to support CC... and then more data showing it was the opposite. Each time it got a number of gasps as people realized they've had information deliberately concealed from them.

Islamophobia is not real. A phobia is an irrational fear of something. Being fearful of something that wants to kill or enslave you is not irrational.

Not at all. Ask Juan Williams

Agreed wholeheartedly.

Excellent post, and you have more than enough ammo for refuting most any standard verbal attack from the other side.

And I'm serious. My wife is a non-white, Sunni Muslim immigrant.

Another response.

RAAAAAACIST!

Me: *snort and burst into laughter* Racist? Racist? How disappointing. Here I was expecting a reasoned argument bolstered, by evidence, logic, history, leading to a high-level exchange of ideas. Seriously, I expected better of someone of your claimed intellectual caliber - I guess I misjudged your argumentation ability.

At least you have the ammo to put them in their place, not all of us have such good ammo. Congratulations on have such a relationship and that you and your wife both have a similar perspective in this regard!

Good Lord, man! How many wives do you have? ;-)

Did I mention I became a Muslim? ;D

My wife is from Kazakhstan; she's Asian and (nominally) Sunni Muslim.

Those tactics are nothing new. Just resurrected block party meetings, where folks are denounced by the party members, and forced to defend themselves from accusations. The more in the crowd accusing, the more intimidated the person is supposed to feel.

Adjusted for changes in fertilization and pesticide usage, the best analysis I've found shows that crop yields have risen about 5% annually for the past 8-10 years. With other factors smoothed out, this was attributed to increased CO2. It's a bit different greenhouse effect than the one the watermelons (green on the outside, red on the inside) have been wetting their pants over for the past 40 years.

Plants "inhale" CO2, and "exhale" oxygen.

At night, the process reverses. No Photosynthesis when the sun goes down.

Does it reverse (plants release CO2) or do the plants just go dormant until dawn?

It reverses, they let CO2 out at night, and take in oxygen. When people talk about that great mountain/forest air that makes them sleepy, it is all the CO2 the trees and plants are releasing as the sun goes down.

Hah!!! We learned all about the "carbon cycle" in fourth grade biology class. It made perfet sense then, and it still does. And trust me, that fourth grade came quite a while back for me.

I am convinced that the greatest contributor to the hoax of "climate change", "carbon footprint", and all that duck sass is our gummit controlled publick skewlz. Those perverts twist everything to their own mould and agenda, beat the "its for the CHIDRINS drum, and scowl at anyone who has ever rubbed more tha=n four brain synapses together at the same time.

It appears from satellite photographs over the past 20 years that the Sahara is indeed greening and that the green is spreading fast. We live in miraculous times!

I was on a forum about 10 years ago and a well meaning guy posted an article by Roy Spencer a leading meteorologist at the Univ. of Alabama, and stated, "Roy Spencer says it is true that there is global warming". I knew Roy Spencer did not accept any of the Globaloney nonsense, so I though I better read the article. Turned out it was actually a 50 page paper that he had submitted to various journals. I read it, and out of the 50 pages there was one short sentence that stated, "The earth is showing indications of warming, but no one knows exactly why it is warming." The rest of the paper was basically saying there was no evidence to suggest that there was any man-made global warming. When I responded and said as much, the guy got very upset and reported me to the site moderator, who told me I should not be telling anyone they are wrong concerning their posts. Basically, I can't disagree with anyone.

It is the religion of the Left (read Marxist/Communists) concerning Globaloney, abortion rights, LGBQTLMNOPXYZ...rights, Darwinism, and everything else they accept. You cannot refute any of it as it is Blasphemy to do so, and you have to be stoned to death, or torn apart by wild horses, or something of that nature. It is really a religion of psychotic delusions, and don't you dare suggest that they are delusions or else. Evil comes in many forms and this passage from 1Kings 14:9-10 sums it up:
" you also have done more evil than all who were before you, and have gone and made for yourself other gods and molten images to provoke Me to anger, and have cast Me behind your back— therefore behold, I am bringing calamity on the house of Jeroboam, and will cut off from Jeroboam every male person, both bond and free in Israel, and I will make a clean sweep of the house of Jeroboam, as one sweeps away dung until it is all gone."

In other words.. you were censored.

Only in regard to telling the Globaloney crowd that there is no Globaloney. Yes, the comment was removed, but I was not suspended or banned.

There is one person in the world who believes in trickle down economics and that's me. I believe that if corporations have more money they can hire more people and create more wealth. I believe that if people can achieve wealth that provides them an incentive to create wealth.

Imagine that. Only works every time it's tried.

Government DOES NOT create wealth. Free market and competition are healthy.

The left deserves ridicule, not serious consideration. The idea that there is a right to healthcare is a perfect example.

Sadly, I think the left and the Rinos are one in the same. Their end game appears to be anything that expands the scope and size of govt period. Job security for those who "make the rules".
We see how that ends up for us; obama care crammed down our throats... govt is exempt.

And, no repeal. No matter how often they promise. No matter how many times we vote.

A much-maligned skeptic is vindicated!

Anthony Watts of Watts Up With That reports on an important scientific paper sponsored by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (the official keepers of temperature records) that confirms what Watts and other critics have maintained for years. To its credit, NOAA decided in 2012 to test Watts’s critique that a substantial portion of the surface air temperature monitoring stations that are used to generate data for claims of global warming are located in places that have become surrounded by urbanization in the form of asphalt and concrete surfaces and other facilities that absorb heat during the day and discharge it at night -- thereby artificially raising the average air temperatures.

https://wattsupwiththat.com...

https://journals.ametsoc.or...

https://wattsupwiththat.com...

Good info!

Something else interesting, the main CO2 measuring station, the one the 'climate scientists' use to track CO2 concentration in the atmosphere, is located atop Mauna Loa mountain in Hawaii, which is the site of the largest active volcano on the planet.

NO! Where are you getting this information? It sure hasn't been given the light of day!

I first learned about it years ago and always thought it was interesting that CO2 measurements were being taken right over a CO2 spewing volcano. I've never seen anybody like Watts talk about it so I just left it in the background. You can do an internet search for Mauna Loa and CO2 to find the info. To be fair, there is a site that explains why the volcano does not affect their measurements but the skeptic in me does not completely trust the claim because the Warmists have not exactly been honest on many occasions.

Right. The volcano doesn't affect their measurements, just like that's not a human baby in a pregnant woman's uterus. Got it.

That part is beyond my level of education and it is something I would like to see Watts and others address.