[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 19 KB, 843x92, climate change.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
8785085 No.8785085 [Reply] [Original]

How does one respond to this?
How do you argue with people who can't tell the difference between the weather outside and overall long term climate?

>> No.8785095

How do you argue with warmists who see snow outside and tell us the world is getting hotter?

>> No.8785101
File: 34 KB, 964x652, 1457644027589.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
8785101

>>8785085
hey thats my post from /pol/

>> No.8785585
File: 59 KB, 468x600, Appropriate dismissal of poltards.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
8785585

>>8785101
You have to go back.

>> No.8785587

>>8785085
You post pictures like >>8785585 does. Yell loud enough and the truth is whatever you want it to be!

>> No.8785600
File: 212 KB, 922x882, Canadiafeels.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
8785600

>>8785101
go back there, syrup man

>> No.8785634

>>8785085
In all seriousness, you point out the facts and explain the differences calmly. Even if it doesn't work with the specific person, it'll prevent any spectators from falling for his fallacious reasoning and lack of knowledge.

>> No.8785676
File: 55 KB, 640x360, 1484857134864.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
8785676

>>8785585
>>8785600
>>>/reddit/

>> No.8785858

>>8785085
>How do you argue with people who can't tell the difference between the weather outside and overall long term climate?
Arguing has never achieved anything positive.
People choose ignorance out of fear.
They don't want truth: They "like" to be uncivilized.

>> No.8785906

Plenty of retards from /pol/ post this garbage daily, so stick around and you'll get plenty of practice here.

>> No.8786129

>>8785085
You can't, they've started with a conclusion and then find whatever flimsy evidence they can to support it. Any evidence of AGW is just dismissed as fake or a conspiracy.

>> No.8787574

>>8785634
I've tried this multiple times, on /his/ and /pol/, on a variety of topics. It doesn't produce favorable results.
A very common response I get when quoting peer reviewed academic works, even just quoting the works my opponents are linking against me, only having read the misleading pop culture magazine title, is that I have to be a paid shill to go through all the effort, thus my views are dismissed.

So if you make an argument, you must be a shill, and if you don't, you must be wrong. No winning.

>> No.8787594
File: 99 KB, 640x640, 1487308567421.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
8787594

>>8787574
>>8786129
>>8785906
>>8785858
can you guys really not tell that that post was ironic?

>> No.8787599

>>8787594
I can tell you don't visit /pol/ often if you think this is ironic.

>> No.8787602
File: 1.05 MB, 580x632, 1480988452011.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
8787602

>>8787599
i wrote that post... it's ironic

>> No.8787605

>>8787602
If that is the case, your ironic post is very similar to many unironic posts.

>> No.8787608

>>8785085
>shut up you fucking leaf
best argument you can possibly give