I usually start by assuming good faith, and there was a time when I thought it was useful to engage pretty much anyone in discussion, even if the chance of anyone changing their mind was low. This was particularly the case in the days when the old SSSF had a goodly number of random visitors and first-timers etc, because I wanted to make what little contribution I could in the battle against pseudoscience.

I’ve had considerable dealings with one of our contributors, and after several years I can more or less predict how things will go if I seriously engage him or her on his or her terms.

The person will post pseudoscientific views on climate, either out of the blue or in response to an actual news item based on the work of climatologists. I’ll take a bit of time to refute the points one by one, using relevant journal articles. The person will reply with articles from a pseudoscientific website hosted by someone without scientific credentials. I’ll take a bit more time, disproving the data or showing the flaw in the logic.

Next, the person will shift the goalposts, or change the topic completely, and I’ll go back and do it again. The next day they’ll show up seemingly having absorbed no information at all and just post the exact same nonsense as before.

Recently, I’ve stopped engaging this person. Perhaps in my maturity I value my time more. Perhaps, because we don’t get random visitors here anymore, I’m not so worried about anyone else being taken in by pseudoscience. But I’m not edified by the above process, and certainly the other person doesn’t seem to be learning anything, so there’s really no point. Instead I’ll just post articles on climatology and discuss the topic with any of the various non-trolls.

The darkness of knowing is upon him…

That seems a sensible approach and strategy, dv.

I’m going with the don’t respond approach.

It surprises me how many do respond.

> pseudoscientific views on climate

Well, that’s a lot better than unscientific views on climate.

I’m about to write a cartoon with the text.

“In order to keep peace in my house, we don’t talk about religion or politics … or climate”

mollwollfumble said:

> pseudoscientific views on climate

Well, that’s a lot better than unscientific views on climate.

Is it?

I think it’s a lot worse.

The Rev Dodgson said:

mollwollfumble said:

> pseudoscientific views on climate

Well, that’s a lot better than unscientific views on climate.

Is it?

I think it’s a lot worse.

It’s feeling worse here. Rainfall steadily dropping since the 1970s. Lowest ever spring rainfall. Heading to lowest ever summer rainfall. Unheard of dry lightnings strikes.

sarahs mum said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

mollwollfumble said:

> pseudoscientific views on climate

Well, that’s a lot better than unscientific views on climate.

Is it?

I think it’s a lot worse.

It’s feeling worse here. Rainfall steadily dropping since the 1970s. Lowest ever spring rainfall. Heading to lowest ever summer rainfall. Unheard of dry lightnings strikes.

Cimate change won’t be taken seriously until it starts to cost the Chinese money.

And the Americans.

captain_spalding said:

And the Americans.

It is costing the Americans money.

As for the Chinese, they spend more on GHG reduction measures than USA and Europe combined.

captain_spalding said:

sarahs mum said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Is it?

I think it’s a lot worse.

It’s feeling worse here. Rainfall steadily dropping since the 1970s. Lowest ever spring rainfall. Heading to lowest ever summer rainfall. Unheard of dry lightnings strikes.

Cimate change won’t be taken seriously until it starts to cost the Chinese money.

It is already doing that and if we can believe what they say, China is actually doing more about climate change than we are.

roughbarked said:

captain_spalding said:

sarahs mum said:

It’s feeling worse here. Rainfall steadily dropping since the 1970s. Lowest ever spring rainfall. Heading to lowest ever summer rainfall. Unheard of dry lightnings strikes.

Cimate change won’t be taken seriously until it starts to cost the Chinese money.

It is already doing that and if we can believe what they say, China is actually doing more about climate change than we are.

That’s the difficult part for me: believing what they say. They have a predilection for deception, making the US and Russia look like novices at it.

Obviousman said:

roughbarked said:

captain_spalding said:

Cimate change won’t be taken seriously until it starts to cost the Chinese money.

It is already doing that and if we can believe what they say, China is actually doing more about climate change than we are.

That’s the difficult part for me: believing what they say. They have a predilection for deception, making the US and Russia look like novices at it.

You can always look at what other people say the Chinese are doing.

dv said:

I usually start by assuming good faith, and there was a time when I thought it was useful to engage pretty much anyone in discussion, even if the chance of anyone changing their mind was low. This was particularly the case in the days when the old SSSF had a goodly number of random visitors and first-timers etc, because I wanted to make what little contribution I could in the battle against pseudoscience.

I’ve had considerable dealings with one of our contributors, and after several years I can more or less predict how things will go if I seriously engage him or her on his or her terms.

The person will post pseudoscientific views on climate, either out of the blue or in response to an actual news item based on the work of climatologists. I’ll take a bit of time to refute the points one by one, using relevant journal articles. The person will reply with articles from a pseudoscientific website hosted by someone without scientific credentials. I’ll take a bit more time, disproving the data or showing the flaw in the logic.

Next, the person will shift the goalposts, or change the topic completely, and I’ll go back and do it again. The next day they’ll show up seemingly having absorbed no information at all and just post the exact same nonsense as before.

Recently, I’ve stopped engaging this person. Perhaps in my maturity I value my time more. Perhaps, because we don’t get random visitors here anymore, I’m not so worried about anyone else being taken in by pseudoscience. But I’m not edified by the above process, and certainly the other person doesn’t seem to be learning anything, so there’s really no point. Instead I’ll just post articles on climatology and discuss the topic with any of the various non-trolls.

And has him or her had any success or do you still hold the same views?

Peak Warming Man said:

dv said:

I usually start by assuming good faith, and there was a time when I thought it was useful to engage pretty much anyone in discussion, even if the chance of anyone changing their mind was low. This was particularly the case in the days when the old SSSF had a goodly number of random visitors and first-timers etc, because I wanted to make what little contribution I could in the battle against pseudoscience.

I’ve had considerable dealings with one of our contributors, and after several years I can more or less predict how things will go if I seriously engage him or her on his or her terms.

The person will post pseudoscientific views on climate, either out of the blue or in response to an actual news item based on the work of climatologists. I’ll take a bit of time to refute the points one by one, using relevant journal articles. The person will reply with articles from a pseudoscientific website hosted by someone without scientific credentials. I’ll take a bit more time, disproving the data or showing the flaw in the logic.

Next, the person will shift the goalposts, or change the topic completely, and I’ll go back and do it again. The next day they’ll show up seemingly having absorbed no information at all and just post the exact same nonsense as before.

Recently, I’ve stopped engaging this person. Perhaps in my maturity I value my time more. Perhaps, because we don’t get random visitors here anymore, I’m not so worried about anyone else being taken in by pseudoscience. But I’m not edified by the above process, and certainly the other person doesn’t seem to be learning anything, so there’s really no point. Instead I’ll just post articles on climatology and discuss the topic with any of the various non-trolls.

And has him or her had any success or do you still hold the same views?

why would you change your correct views to wrong ones? seems a tad stupid.

I think zepps gone anyway. probably reading this and being frustrated they canna answer.

Peak Warming Man said:

dv said:

I usually start by assuming good faith, and there was a time when I thought it was useful to engage pretty much anyone in discussion, even if the chance of anyone changing their mind was low. This was particularly the case in the days when the old SSSF had a goodly number of random visitors and first-timers etc, because I wanted to make what little contribution I could in the battle against pseudoscience.

I’ve had considerable dealings with one of our contributors, and after several years I can more or less predict how things will go if I seriously engage him or her on his or her terms.

The person will post pseudoscientific views on climate, either out of the blue or in response to an actual news item based on the work of climatologists. I’ll take a bit of time to refute the points one by one, using relevant journal articles. The person will reply with articles from a pseudoscientific website hosted by someone without scientific credentials. I’ll take a bit more time, disproving the data or showing the flaw in the logic.

Next, the person will shift the goalposts, or change the topic completely, and I’ll go back and do it again. The next day they’ll show up seemingly having absorbed no information at all and just post the exact same nonsense as before.

Recently, I’ve stopped engaging this person. Perhaps in my maturity I value my time more. Perhaps, because we don’t get random visitors here anymore, I’m not so worried about anyone else being taken in by pseudoscience. But I’m not edified by the above process, and certainly the other person doesn’t seem to be learning anything, so there’s really no point. Instead I’ll just post articles on climatology and discuss the topic with any of the various non-trolls.

And has him or her had any success or do you still hold the same views?

Before his/her time, dv held the view that anthropogenic climate change was an alarmist point of view. Eventually he convinced himself that it was real, by using science.

So who is the subject of the OP?

Also, how much do you get paid per hour Daz? Sometimes a good yard stick :-p