Alarmists use the positives
# A commenter did point out that Alarmist rhetoric is all positive language ie 'will' instead of 'will not', where as Skeptics is characterised by negatives 'will not'. I did write a list of positive skeptic phrases
-afterwards I am not convinced positive language has much effect
|
a) The alarmists POSITIVE claims:
|
1. The climate is getting warmer
2. and there is a real chance of catastrophe !
3. And Climate Change is accelerating (this is an out & lie, but media are afraid to challenge)
4. wind/solar are magic power sources way better than fossil fuels
5. They are free energy (another lie they are not challenged on)
6. skeptics are funded by big oil
7. Skeptics have massive undue influence on the media, trying to censor debate.
8. 97% of climate scientists say climate change is real .. (a wholey misleading claim unchallenged by the media.)
.
.. But they do use negatives with effect
9. Your children COULD suffer.
that provoke to worry that @Jones mentions, could be very imp
10. "chidren won't know what snow is" ? that's a negstive they used with effect
| Missing Out On
- Somestimes a good way if selling things is make the people afraid of losing something
17. We could get left behind China in terms of economy.
18. We could be getting poorer
19.missing out on cheap fuel
| | |
|
b) The Skeptics POSITIVE claims:
|
1. The climate is varying, it always does.
2. It is varying within natural variations
3. Mankind has coped with these variations in the past.
4. Fossil fuels are great, we have power whenever we need it
5. Fossil fuels have got much more efficient, so $ for $ you save more CO2 in replacing old fuels sources,with gas than you do with renewables.
5b. Fossil fuel power pays into the tax system, renewables take out.
6. Alarmists have massive funding, we have evidence,nsee the big multi-national eco-charities spending.
6a. We can list many times where there is a conflict of financial interest between companies which fund alarmist propaganda and their business.
6b. Money spent on alarmist lobbying and propaganda is many magnitudes more than money spent by skeptics, we have evidence of this.
7. Alarmist have massive undue influence on the media. We have multiple examples of evidence e.g. See the way BBC/ABC employees can be shown to have green/keft views over more conservative
7a Alarmists are trying to censor debate. We have evidence; multiple examples see how they always refuse to debate and exert influence on forums/media to censor.
8. MORE THAN 97% of skeptics believe that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and may effect temperature.
9. MORE THAN 97% of SCIENTISTS ARE SKEPTICAL of people who claim to have CERTAINTY to tie the temperature in 100 years time to this decades production of CO2.
10. Alarmists have an integrity problem, we have evidence of myltiple breaches of integrity.
11. It is quite likely that we will have fusion power before most countries adopt large scale renewables
12. Our CO2 reduction measures are laughable as they will hardly make any difference to glibal CO2 in 50 years time.
13. Every time the west succeeds in reducing by 5 units the rest of the world grows by 50 or 100 units. So in 50 years time without any introduction of fusion power CO2 will be 630 instead of 660.
14. We have evidence of mammals evolving during times of CO2 being above 1000
15. Humans breath CO2 at levels if 4000 in submarines, no problem.
16. One of the reasons why your children are going to grow up poorer than you, are cos of the green policies you approved, cos you believed in CAGW.
The skeptics ones are all true positives, however I think they fail the simplicity test compared with "Oh my god we are going to die"
.. and note we fail on the negative COULDs, which be a bigger motivation than positives
17. We could get left behind China in terms of economy.
|
|