devnulljp wrote:I would focus on the outright dishonesty of all of the people claiming that climate change isn't real -- the fudging of numbers, the undisclosed connections to oil companies, the cherry picking of data, the distortion of research to fit a preconceived end, and the fact that you have ALL* climate scientists over here telling you that not only have they spent their adult lives studying this stuff but that the climate is changing and that humans are responsible while over here you have a bunch of oil company executives, lawyers, assorted right wing ideologues and idiots like Lord Monkton saying the opposite. Point out that it's the same tactics -- and in some cases the same people -- used by the tobacco lobby in the 70s to dispute the link between smoking and cancer (and the same tactics as used by evolution deniers too, but you might not want to go there depending on your audience).
I'd say making this your central argument would be a good tactic if you were against global warming; however, proving your opponents are wrong doesn't prove you're right. It may be good rhetoric and may make a good rebuttal section(just before conclusion) of the presentation, but if you're going to strike down deniers, you first have to solidly present what they are denying.
BOOM-SHAKALAKALAKA-BOOM-SHAKALAKUNGA
Behndy wrote:i don't like people with "talent" and "skills" that don't feel the need to cover their inadequacies under good time happy sounds.
Yeah, regardless of your stance the first thing you have to remember about argumentation is exactly what snipelfritz said. He hit the nail on the head with the whole "proving your opponents are wrong doesn't prove you're right".
If you're going to deconstruct their argument (which is a good way of going about this whole assignment) you have a few options, but all of them involve a clear (or as clear as you can make it) explanation of EXACTLY what the other side believes and then refuting it. You can use some Intro to Logic type stuff to poke holes in their arguments. For example:
1: (A⊃B) 2: ~A ∴ ~B
Is a bad argument form. It states, basically, "if A then B" in the first premise, then "Not A" in the second. The conclusion that they say follows is "Not B", but that's bad logical form in propositional argumentative logic despite the fact that most people will tell you that it's valid. So you can attack the validity of their argument (if it's invalid from a logical standpoint) or, in the event that it is logically valid, attack the truth of the premises. The latter of those will most likely be easier for you, so I'd go for that. Provide counterexamples in the form of contradictory research, but also keep in mind that just because everyone else says something is true doesn't mean that it is. Go to credible sources for everything and provide strong counterexamples to deconstruct their arguments.
snipelfritz wrote:I'd say making this your central argument would be a good tactic if you were against global warming; however, proving your opponents are wrong doesn't prove you're right. It may be good rhetoric and may make a good rebuttal section(just before conclusion) of the presentation, but if you're going to strike down deniers, you first have to solidly present what they are denying.
Normally I'd agree with you but he already said he didn't want to go the whole presenting loads of data route. And the crux of this whole debate is that the experts say one thing while a bunch of people with an agenda/financial incentive who are not experts say another. None of us are experts so we have to listen to the people who know hat they are talking about, but there's a whole industry of muckraking FUD spreaders creating the false impression that there *is* a debate. There isn't. The case is closed based on the evidence -- details are still being worked out of course, but like evolution or that smoking causes cancer this is a fact and we wouldn't even be arguing about it if it weren't for the FUD spreaders.
Good deals done with all these guys Canada, we put the "u" in satire
snipelfritz wrote:I'd say making this your central argument would be a good tactic if you were against global warming; however, proving your opponents are wrong doesn't prove you're right. It may be good rhetoric and may make a good rebuttal section(just before conclusion) of the presentation, but if you're going to strike down deniers, you first have to solidly present what they are denying.
Normally I'd agree with you but he already said he didn't want to go the whole presenting loads of data route. And the crux of this whole debate is that the experts say one thing while a bunch of people with an agenda/financial incentive who are not experts say another. None of us are experts so we have to listen to the people who know hat they are talking about, but there's a whole industry of muckraking FUD spreaders creating the false impression that there *is* a debate. There isn't. The case is closed based on the evidence -- details are still being worked out of course, but like evolution or that smoking causes cancer this is a fact and we wouldn't even be arguing about it if it weren't for the FUD spreaders.
i didnt even think about pointing out the credibility of those who are against global warming, ill definatly toss that in there. i figure ill start out the presentation by listing some data explaining what global warming is, whats causing it, how we know this. then after providing solid eveidence as to why its happening, ill start to point out the arguments of why its not at shit on the credibility.
can anyone help me out with disproving the credibility of the naysayers of global warming, im having trouble with disproving their claims and evidence that its not happening
This is the face of climate change denialism -- this man is (a) not a scientist (b) not a member of the house of lords despite his calling himself Lord Monkton (c) did I mention he has no scientific credentials at all?
You shouldn't really need more than that.
You might want to look into Richard Muller -- physicist and long-time climate change denier. He did his own study in an attempt to reveal the conspiracy ... he changed his mind.
Good deals done with all these guys Canada, we put the "u" in satire
