Talk:How to Argue with a Liberal/anti-GW

Insertion #1

discussion of the first paragraph of insertion #1, which was global warming denial-oriented

from 76.208.33.224: I didn't want to delete the original poster's satire, but felt that it's humor was based on certain assumptions about conservatives that while often true are not underpinnings of our philosophy. Asking the pope about abortion: funny. The liberal mind requiring facts: funny, but probably not in the way the author intended.

That's fine -- I want to do some fact-checking (ha!) to make sure my satire is on target, and then I may have some further comments for you... the tone of what you wrote seems to fit, so I'll use it if I can :-) It would probably be better to discuss the global warming question over at Issuepedia: global warming | arguments against global warming | global warming denial | global warming hysteria | or even American conservatism - feel free to comment on the talk page for any article that inspires you ;-) --Woozle 18:01, 12 December 2008 (EST)

further comments

Just a first stab at your insertion...

Facts for us don't stand in the way of the Lord's work, and facts for them do not stand in the way of social justice and environmentalism.

I like the first part of that (it doesn't matter if conservatives do the wrong thing, because God said its okay... and conservatives know God said so regardless of whether or not it is factual that he did) and I almost like the second part (liberals don't let facts get in the way of achieving justice) but I think I'll rephrase it like this:

We don't let facts stand in the way of doing God's work, because we all know what that is, the same way they don't let facts stand in the way of their obsessive desire for social justice and improving the so-called "environment".

Now we get to the bit about global warming:

If the Mann hockey stick relies on 25 out of 95 data proxies and then those end up coming from only TWO LOCATIONS on earth....who cares? Global warming is still true. Satellite data shows a cooling earth for 7 years? No problem - they'll simply change banners to "climate change". You see? When arguing with a liberal you can't use facts because just like Heidegger said, the time for decisions is over!

There are two things to talk about, here: (1) the argument over GW, and (2) what makes this essay (hopefully) funny.

Just to get the facts straight (I'm not quite sure which side of Poe's Law you're coming from, but even if you're sincerely anti-GW, you need to know the other side's arguments): global warming theory does not depend on the infamous "hockey stick", and as far as I know satellite data shows a dramatic warming for at least the last 7 years (more like 70 years, iirc) -- but please feel free to send me links if anyone is claiming this (if they aren't already filed under global warming denial).

So, that aside... one satirical point you might be trying to make is "those crazy liberals and their climate change -- they kept saying the globe was warming up and we should all panic, but all the evidence shows it cooling dramatically and we're all going to be frozen under if we're not careful! So there's really nothing to worry about." (The joke being in the last sentence.)

So maybe it can go something like this (I'm taking out the "hockey stick" ref because I don't know how many people know about that):

Ever try to talk facts to a liberal when the subject is global warming? Never mind that the best conservative authorities have shown that their data is all fudged from the same broken thermometer stuck in some prof's window at Berkeley; if you show them the real data which shows that we're actually going into an ice age, they just change terminology and start babbling about "climate change"! As if a global ice age presented some kind of "problem" we needed to spend vast amounts of our tax dollars to "solve", when all it really means is lower cooling bills in the summer and easier storage for deer meat after a good hunt. When arguing with a liberal, there's just no point in bringing up these facts because, as the notorious Nazi sympathizer Heidegger liked to say, the time for decisions is over!

I'll continue looking at the rest of your text as time permits. --Woozle 21:12, 12 December 2008 (EST)

Insertion #2

The second block of text inserted by the user at 76.208.33.224 is here:

Quite often the "right" authority figure is merely one with the "right" credentials. For instance Al Gore may not know much about science, but because his message meets the standard of calling attention to environmentalism it will be swallowed faster than manchowder at a drunken sorority. If you point out that water vapor is responsible for 95% of the greenhouse effect and that CO2 is less than 4 parts in 10,000 of our atmosphere, they will not care; Al Gore has spoken. Mankind responsible for only 3% of the .36% of the CO2? Doesn't matter! Al Gore said it and Obama said the science has been decided.

This is a set of straw man attacks:

1. Al Gore gained respect in progressive/liberal circles for promoting the issue of global warming, not the other way around. Despite being a politician with high ambition, he refused to bow down to industry propaganda against global warming even knowing that this would hurt his political career, and thus earned far more respect than he had had as Clinton's VP (and husband of the dubious Tipper Gore).
2. The two anti-GW arguments presented sound familiar and have no doubt been refuted many times, but off the top of my head I don't have the facts to refute them with. If you sincerely believe that those two arguments refute the piles of evidence supporting the need for GW advocacy, and genuinely want me to go look it up and explain to you why they are bogus, I can do that. I do care about the truth.

--Woozle 19:44, 18 December 2008 (EST)