Nope. There is simply no credible way that happens.
Yes, there is.
It's credible if you focus on the science, anyway.
The methane bomb is a low but not zero probability, for example. It would kill most of the human population of the planet.
The science includes the unlikely, see.
Simple. "They were wrong about that; therefore, they will be wrong about this." What part of that do you not understand?
The part where you think any such argument would have (or ever has had) dominating influence on responsible adults -
as an argument.
Who is that "they" you keep referring to, for example, and why would anyone be listening to them instead of the much larger and ever-present body of informed and responsible adults?
Look, this is propaganda 101: The people who choose to pay attention to the fringe and the uninformed, like those swayed by uncontested propaganda, cannot be persuaded by argument. That is because they are not arguing. Arguing is not what they do.
The Republican voter, for example, is not arguing. They are not persuadable by argument - any argument. If they were, they would not be Republican voters.
Because there are people (even otherwise intelligent people here) who are saying they are not silly.
So?
Again - why do you set the few and the fringe up as the ones people will pay attention to, rather than the large majority of the informed and responsible?
How does it happen that the climate change discussion is made to depend on "persuading" the unpersuadable, arguing with those who do not argue, somehow disrespecting and eliminating every single fringe opinion of one kind while pandering and catering to the utterly idiotic bs peddled by the Republican media feed, in a vain and doomed attempt to get its victims to see the reason they have never seen and never respected?
It pretty much is - as anyone who has taught anyone anything knows. Every political campaign is organized around the premise that that's possible.
No successful political campaign has ever been organized around persuading the unpersuadable.
You cannot make the unreasonable see reason.
Then you will never get anything done. You will fail.
Not on my terms. I'm not the one attempting the ridiculous, and blaming others when I fall short.
On yours, where the only way to succeed is to persuade people you cannot persuade to do in the future what has to be done now, failure is indeed inevitable. Just don't blame the fringe lefty for your inability to persuade Republicans to see reason. The inability of the Republican voter to see reason is part of reality. The reality-based fringes of AGW discussion don't have their own media conglomerates, their own Federal and State governments, their own Court, their own amplification infrastructure - nobody is forcing anyone to listen to them, nobody is inundated with repetitions of their opinions.
And you just surrendered without a fight.
Backwards.
Choosing to adopt a failed tactic, one that has never worked, is surrender. When you stake your mission on silencing every bus stop rant and fringe opinion that a Republican voter could ever possibly react against (and every dishonest representation of legitimate opinions as such), you might as well wave a white flag and go watch TV.
