• Log In
  • Register

I got into a 'debate' with a climate change denier today....

Forum Search


  • Be respectful to others
  • No spam
  • No NSFW content
  • No piracy or key resellers
  • No link shorteners
  • Offensive content will be removed


tragiktimes101 7 months ago

Too many specifics to really get into, but as person devoted to the applicability of the scientific method, it just hurts my brain to see people fall back on so many fallacious thoughts and spread that to others that might not be very scientifically literate. The ones that do believe in climate change and don't see it as an issue that governments should tackle, but rather citizens themselves, tend to be the same ones to spread fallacious arguments that prevent people from believing in climate change in the first place. Which only limits the amount citizens are willing to do in regards to addressing it.

Anyone else gotten into similar debates on the subject, or on science denial in general?

Comments Sorted by:

rhali8 2 Builds 6 points 7 months ago

tHe EArtH iS FLaT

mimiguy2 1 Build 4 points 7 months ago

Obama is a lizard invented by the illuminati founded by Doritos in 1337 C.E by Mark Zuckerberg.

Haze159 1 Build 3 points 7 months ago

Water is not wet

jakeSpot 2 Builds 6 points 7 months ago



1. covered or saturated with water or another liquid.

Water can't be covered with water so water can't be wet!


mimiguy2 1 Build 1 point 7 months ago

If someone says water is wet, ask "Is fire burnt?"

Haze159 1 Build 1 point 7 months ago

of course not

tragiktimes101 submitter 1 Build 1 point 7 months ago

You're comparing a chemical change with a physical one, lol.

jakeSpot 2 Builds 1 point 7 months ago
  • chemical properties with physical properties

That's to the best of my (limited) understanding, though.

Enrico411 3 points 7 months ago

Climate change is an undeniable fact. Earths climate has changed alot and may times throughout its history. The main question is are we as humans responsible/speeding things up or is this just another of earths cycles (Climate oscillation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_oscillation)?

What i also don't see alot is what is the suns responsibility in all of this? Because at this moment it seems not only earth but other planets are also changing and warming up http://www.space.news/2015-10-06-entire-solar-system-is-heating-up-scientists-blame-solar-warming.html .

Our planet/universe is a complex system and there are many things we don't know yet.

tragiktimes101 submitter 1 Build 1 point 7 months ago

We do know that there is a natural carbonic cycle, which we are throwing off by dumping larger quantities of CO2 (as well as other greenhouse gases) than the carbonic absorbers out there are able to absorb. We also know that CO2, as well as methane and other greenhouse gases, are extremely good at absorbing radiation. These two facts mean that even if the sun is nearing a normal, and periodic spike, it is going to exacerbate the issue.

Siwini 3 points 7 months ago

People in lab coats are dangerous to the health of laboratory animals!

Seriously, I think we all need to reduce our environmental footprint, it couldn't hurt.

MichelWeber 1 point 7 months ago

I agree - but to do that we really need to change our way of life - significantly.

For starters, use mass transit (but this may be a mute point with the next two items). Stop buying electronics. No computer, no phones... so on. The manufacture and transport of all those goods (finished and raw) contribute to that footprint. Massive job layoffs, and a severely impacted economy will result, but that is what it will take in my opinion.

Siwini 3 points 7 months ago

I spent about an hour picking up trash in a local park this morning, (litter drives me nuts), I'm not talking about a radical change, if people would just pay attention to the little things we do, I think we'd see improvement in the big issues. Recycle, Reuse, Repurpose, Respect, Rethink, these aren't hard concepts to understand. No, it's not without cost, but there's a way to make people be more conscious of the consequences of their behavior. Get in their wallet.

Edit: additional thought: want something made out of plastic? (for instance) ok, but there's a non-recycleable penalty, all those six-pack beverage dohickies? plastic grocery bags? one use water bottles? don't get me started. who'd have thunk 30 years ago that a gallon of clean water would cost more than a gallon of gas? IT'S THE LITTLE THINGS!

MichelWeber 2 points 7 months ago

Glad you are picking up the trash. Drives me nuts as well - especially when I see overflowing garbage bins are parks or beaches - just take to another - you are not required to put it in the first one you see, or one that is over flowing - but people don't want to carry it around with them.

Xorex64 2 points 7 months ago

I've had vaccine debates in middle school.

Anti - Vaxxers - "Do your research, cancer rates have gone up with vaccines" "Big pharma likes money"

mimiguy2 1 Build 3 points 7 months ago

Yes the anti cancer vaccine = cancer.

Zeromus725 1 point 7 months ago

“anti cancer vaccine”

Where can I get one?

mimiguy2 1 Build 1 point 7 months ago

It's mainly for teenagers or something. it's the HPV vaccine. but beware since it gives you the cancer! (But in a weak/dead form)

Zeromus725 1 point 7 months ago

Oh, I see: HPV is like a carcinogen. I thought it would prevent straight-up cancer. I suppose that was my bad.

mimiguy2 1 Build 2 points 7 months ago

No I was being sarcastic.

TheShadowGuy 2 points 7 months ago

The only halfway decent arguments I've heard from anti-vaxxers are about transparency/communication (which vaccines, which companies, what research, ingredients, how 'necessary' vaccines are determined, etc.), and concerns over financial matters (medical copyrights generating monopolies, politicians receiving money from corporations). Those particular skeptics aren't exactly anti-vaccination but have reasonable concerns.

The stereotypical anti-vaxxer though is painful to try to "debate" with, since you can't have a proper debate against a pile of emotional appeals and logical fallacies. It gets tiring looking at pictures of baby dolls covered in decades worth of needles, listening to accusations that facts are faked and people paid off by "Big Pharma," or see someone bring up that infamous debunked study...

nonoesimposible 2 points 7 months ago

Well, I remember being impressed because when I searched for PCPP on Wikipedia I found para-Chlorophenylpiperazine. Long medical names impress me.

I have no idea what this has to do with debates, but it sounds cool.



jakeSpot 2 Builds 7 points 7 months ago

It is relatively obscure, with limited human use, and produces slightly psychedelic effects.

Sounds like PCPP forums in a nutshell!

/s /s

vagabond139 5 Builds 2 points 7 months ago

You can't get into a argument with a idiot that denies science since it will be impossible for you to prove them wrong since they deny science (at least when its convenient for them). You would have better luck arguing with a brick wall.

tragiktimes101 submitter 1 Build 1 point 7 months ago

True. But, I don't really argue for their sake. As you said, they will never change their opinions. But, I argue for the sake of any people that have indetermined opinions and have yet to fall towards one side or another. Hopefully, they will read and be persuaded to the side of reason.

MichelWeber 2 points 7 months ago

I think the argument is, but haven't really talked much to anyone about it, is that our presence on earth has created climate change. There is no doubt climate change happens, or has happened. At one point a significant part of north america was covered in snow/ice - but not now obviously.

Wolfemane 7 Builds 2 points 7 months ago

Was reading a couple journals this past weekend where more and more research is starting to find we have done far more damage than previously expected. There is a 0 point, or a no turning back point, where climate is irreversibly changed. This new research is finding we may be far FAR closure to that point than previously believed.

romanvalkre 4 Builds 2 points 7 months ago

Once had a very interesting conversation with a Young Earth creationist. Interesting from a human psychology stand point... not sure I learned anything about natural history though.

EagleByte 1 Build 1 point 7 months ago

Well... climate change is happening, but the Ice Age happened, so it's really not abnormal. Why deny it? I really don't know. It's pretty obvious that it's happening, looking at water levels rising. Is it really important to argue about, though?

jakeSpot 2 Builds 3 points 7 months ago

The only change here is that we're the ones speeding it up.

We wouldn't want an ice age to happen to put out our population or another species. Obviously this is on a grander scale but we can slow it down if we take change now.

EagleByte 1 Build 1 point 7 months ago

How are we speeding it up? A few years ago, a volcano erupted, spewing more ozone-damaging gases into the air than humans and their polutants have since the dawn of time.

gorkti200 3 Builds 4 points 7 months ago

How are we speeding it up? A few years ago, a volcano erupted, spewing more ozone-damaging gases into the air than humans and their polutants have since the dawn of time.

This is not only false and irrelevant, it has also been widely discredited. You can read the tortured history of how it has been abused here. Here's some high level points:

-Ozone damage is a parallel concern to climate change. They are not the same concern.
-Not all volcanic eruptions output the same amount of gas.
-The paper this argument came from referenced an unusually large eruption 700,000 years ago, and hypothesized that if the same percentage of hydrogen chloride was released in it that had been released in an eruption that occurred in 1976, it would have exceeded all chlorine-injection into the atmosphere from man-made sources during the year of 1975.
-Hydrogen chloride is water-soluble and will fall out of the air rapidly; comparing it to manmade chlorofluorocarbons is apples and oranges.

Thus, the hypothetical anecdote didn't even correctly apply to ozone depletion, let alone climate change, in the year 1976. And even if it had, it would have only outpaced a single year of human contribution to ozone depletion at 1975 levels, not the dawn of time (or 10,000 years/1000 years/100 years, or all the other time periods that this discredited statement tends to get exaggerated for).

jakeSpot 2 Builds 2 points 7 months ago


I do believe that we are speeding it up, although there are natural causes as well, like what you said.

Humans have increased atmospheric CO2 concentration by more than a third since the Industrial Revolution began.

Methane. A hydrocarbon gas produced both through natural sources and human activities, including the decomposition of wastes in landfills, agriculture, and especially rice cultivation, as well as ruminant digestion and manure management associated with domestic livestock.

Nitrous oxide. A powerful greenhouse gas produced by soil cultivation practices, especially the use of commercial and organic fertilizers, fossil fuel combustion, nitric acid production, and biomass burning.

a group of 1,300 independent scientific experts from countries all over the world under the auspices of the United Nations, concluded there's a more than 95 percent probability that human activities over the past 50 years have warmed our planet.

190n 2 Builds 2 points 7 months ago

Check out this graph. Seems pretty clear-cut to me.

EagleByte 1 Build 1 point 7 months ago

Can't. Bitdefender blocked it.

DeltaZ 1 point 7 months ago


beemovie 1 point 7 months ago

the world melts

[comment deleted]
vagabond139 5 Builds 3 points 7 months ago

You are thinking of weather which is short term change, climate is long term change.


MannyPCs 2 points 7 months ago

Climate change doesn't necessarily mean warmer weather for everywhere.

tragiktimes101 submitter 1 Build 1 point 7 months ago

I don't think global warming is a major issue. It's honestly not getting much hotter.

The average temperature of the globe has risen enough for large shifts in the climate to occur. Shifts that increase the chances of large amounts of rain, drought, heatwaves, cold spikes, etc. Pretty much anything that is outside of relative equilibrium. These cause many, many deaths. It is a pretty major issue. And, soon, in the future there will be major shifts in population distributions due to rising shorelines given that most of the population inhabits near shorelines. The will certainly increase conflict globally.

[comment deleted by staff]