2 hours ago, sethoflagos said:

Obviously. The phrasing had a distinct odour of LLM.

Moderator Note

To all who read this: KNOCK THIS CRAP OFF

18 hours ago, sethoflagos said:

Obviously. The phrasing had a distinct odour of LLM.

We could toss her into the lake. If she floats, she's an LLM.

On 5/3/2025 at 6:41 PM, sethoflagos said:

No. Just our way of telling you to...

Haha...

So funny I forgot to laugh bro

9 hours ago, Phi for All said:

We could toss her into the lake. If she floats, she's an LLM.

Absolute genius

Well, one answer to OP seems to be: refrain from judgmental comments or flaunting one's scientific purity while presenting a broad summation of climate research in a friendly and non-jargony manner.

On 4/30/2025 at 7:42 PM, sethoflagos said:

If the message is to be taken on board by the target audience then it most definitely does have to be intentionally simplified - to a choice of where we want to be in a narrow Goldilocks zone in the spectrum between Moon (really bad) and Venus (even worse).

The moment you get into tipping points and feedback mechanisms etc., you've lost your target audience and the other side win. That is the nature of the game whether you wish it or not. Arguing over eg. exact figures for hypothetical scenarios is just playing into the enemy's hands. It shows us to be weak and divided when it is imperative we appear strong and united.

This is a technical forum itself, ITS NOT THE GENERAL AUDIENCE HERE

On 5/2/2025 at 2:22 PM, iNow said:

Nope. No bad faith here. None. Zero. Zilch. Nada.

This is TOTALLY NOT SNARKY

On 7/1/2024 at 6:41 PM, Airbrush said:

[from OP]

need a good short debate that is very convincing to climate skeptics

7 minutes ago, Sohan Lalwani said:

This is a technical forum itself, ITS NOT THE GENERAL AUDIENCE HERE

But the OP may be looking for ways to engage with one. This is not a technical thread but rather one dedicated to engagement with those who may lack technical expertise. Several here have tried to clarify this for you.

Just now, TheVat said:

But the OP may be looking for ways to engage with one. This is not a technical thread but rather one dedicated to engagement with those who may lack technical expertise. Several here have tried to clarify this for you.

If only you could be my 24/7 translator, thanks @TheVat :)

On 7/1/2024 at 5:41 PM, Airbrush said:

I need a good short debate that is very convincing to climate skeptics.  I have come to believe that humans are making the Earth worst, by making it hotter.  There are some who argue that warmer is better.  The high CO2 is good for plants.  How do you counter that argument?

There are studies that show sea levels are not rising among Pacific Islanders.  The islands seem to float above the sea level rise by accretion.

Coral reef islands can accrete vertically in response to sea level rise | Science Advances

Another climate skeptic claim is that when you compare the graphs of historic, and prehistoric, CO2 levels in the atmosphere, to the graph of average temperature, it seems that the spikes in temperature come BEFORE the spikes in CO2.  They claim that means high CO2 does not CAUSE high temperatures.  Anyone agree?

"In a vote of 7-0, The most prolific climate revisionist editor ever at Wikipedia, with over 5400 article revisions has been banned from making any edits about climate related articles for six months."  Any opinions about this?

Thanks for any ideas, but I've seen a lot of climate skepticism lately.

 

Push them into acknowledging the existence of climate change and anthropogenic causes, while exploring the uncertainty of potential impacts and the practicalities of mitigation and adaptation.

1 hour ago, Sohan Lalwani said:

This is TOTALLY NOT SNARKY

Ok

13 hours ago, iNow said:

Ok

ok

On 7/1/2024 at 5:41 PM, Airbrush said:

I need a good short debate that is very convincing to climate skeptics.  I have come to believe that humans are making the Earth worst, by making it hotter.  There are some who argue that warmer is better.  The high CO2 is good for plants.  How do you counter that argument?

There are studies that show sea levels are not rising among Pacific Islanders.  The islands seem to float above the sea level rise by accretion.

Coral reef islands can accrete vertically in response to sea level rise | Science Advances

Another climate skeptic claim is that when you compare the graphs of historic, and prehistoric, CO2 levels in the atmosphere, to the graph of average temperature, it seems that the spikes in temperature come BEFORE the spikes in CO2.  They claim that means high CO2 does not CAUSE high temperatures.  Anyone agree?

"In a vote of 7-0, The most prolific climate revisionist editor ever at Wikipedia, with over 5400 article revisions has been banned from making any edits about climate related articles for six months."  Any opinions about this?

Thanks for any ideas, but I've seen a lot of climate skepticism lately.

 

This may be unhelpful, but I just spam counterarguements to them if I come across them on media.

Just now, Moleculogic said:

weather stability, agriculture,

Did you ever meet a farmer that wasn't always moaning about the weather ?

If climate change is not real

Why does Earth not look like itself when the Hadean epoch was the present geological period of time?

😱

12 hours ago, Sohan Lalwani said:

If climate change is not real

Why does Earth not look like itself when the Hadean epoch was the present geological period of time?

😱

Climate change is always real, and some things always die as a result; we are uniquely privileged to be able to see it coming, yet stupid enough to close our eye's until it's all over...

7 hours ago, dimreepr said:

Climate change is always real, and some things always die as a result; we are uniquely privileged to be able to see it coming, yet stupid enough to close our eye's until it's all over...

This was very nice to read, +1

On 7/18/2025 at 8:10 PM, Sohan Lalwani said:

If climate change is not real

Why does Earth not look like itself when the Hadean epoch was the present geological period of time?

😱

Are you referring to the Hadean Eon, at the end of which is, when the Earth first began to solidify?

1 hour ago, npts2020 said:

Are you referring to the Hadean Eon, at the end of which is, when the Earth first began to solidify?

Yes I was, my apologies for using the incorrect term.

I can’t seem to edit it

Edited July 21Jul 21 by Sohan Lalwani

On 7/21/2025 at 12:47 AM, Sohan Lalwani said:

Yes I was, my apologies for using the incorrect term.

I wasn't commenting on your usage of epoch vs eon, just pointing out that it should be obvious why the earth hasn't at any time since then looked like it did during the Hadean without saying it.

57 minutes ago, npts2020 said:

I wasn't commenting on your usage of epoch vs eon, just pointing out that it should be obvious why the earth hasn't at any time since then looked like it did during the Hadean without saying it.

I know

I just wanted to apologize because I realized it was wrong