Yep, that's pretty much the mindset.

Sort of related: http://videosift.com/video/The-War-on-Science

Nutritionist? Really?

Condoms are 98% effective - lol. That's with perfect use. Real world data points to between 80% and 90% effectiveness (because people screw up).

Kinda missing the point there, dude.

Not at all. I believe that whenever a fact is presented it should be presented accurately. Especially if you're ridiculing others with it.

Incidentally, I disagree with the premise of this video. I don't think publicly ridiculing others in this manner makes any positive difference to the argument of climate change.

Yeah sorry, but you're still missing the point. It's not to compare facts point for point. It's to point out how ridiculous the objections to climate change are.

And frankly, anyone who doesn't accept the reality of climate change at this point is a lost cause.

No, I'm not missing the point. The point of the video is in the title "how climate change deniers sound to normal people". The video itself clearly illustrates this. The previous sentence is the first time I've directly addressed the topic of the video. It's disturbing that you think you can dictate to someone based on conjecture (since I hadn't directly addressed the video topic before this) whether they have understood something or not. I indirectly addressed the topic when I wrote of the video ridiculing people who do not understand climate change (which is what the video does).

But that doesn't change what I've said. I.e. that if you are going to present a fact, then be accurate.

It also doesn't change my opinion that ridiculing them is counter-productive.

Unless all the knowledge in your own head is in 100% correct order, then perhaps you shouldn't write others off as lost causes because they've gotten something wrong.

I also think you still miss the point....your answer seems to confirm that.
Condoms are >98% effective when used properly. I think your numbers might be for first time users with zero instruction...not the average user...but are more likely really from anti-sex education organizations.
At this point, it is totally reasonable to write off others as lost causes because they intentionally and zealously get important life or death things that effect us all so terribly wrong. No one with a brain that's actually looked at the problem still honestly believes deniers, only political hacks and those that trust them over science. I write them off with no qualms.

And which point and answer would that be? It's pretty clear you're wrong. You're moving into delusional territory.

Health happens to be my area. Condoms are only >98% effective in lab settings. My numbers are from longitudinal studies. In other words, it reflects the average user's results. They are not from anti-sex education organisations. Go look them up - there are lots of studies. Interestingly condom's have similar rates (80% to 90%) of stopping HIV transmission for exactly the same reasons. Even lower in some studies.

Don't be a snob. Education is the path forward. Your lazy abandonment of people because they disagreed with you is stone age thinking.

Anthony Giddens addresses sceptics in his book "The Politics of Climate Change": "Yet the sceptics do deserve and must receive a hearing. Scepticism is the life-blood of science and just as important in policy-making. It is right that whatever claims are made about climate change and its consequences are examined with a critical, even hostile, eye and in a continuing fashion."

Note: Anthony Giddens is very much not a sceptic and his book is an analysis of how to better achieve real action on climate change.

The point of the video.

I've used well over 100 condoms, and never once had a failure, a pregnancy, or an STD. Then again, I not only read the instructions, I was also shown how to use them, and I don't try to use expired or damaged condoms, or store them in heat and sun, or any of the other things people often do wrong with them....so you're wrong, they are not only >98% effective in labs...they have been 100% effective in my experience, for instance, which is >98%, and not in a lab. ;-)

It is not a lazy abandonment of people who disagree with me, it's a long over due abandonment of people who disagree with reality and science (honestly or not) usually in order to be a roadblock for action.
The skeptics have had their hearings, time and time again. At some point, you must admit that those still 'skeptical' either pick and choose/misinterpret information that allows that mindset, are knowingly lying for some gain, or are completely ignorant and only listening to those that pick and choose information or are liars, and they're doing so willfully. Because further 'debate' is consistently at the expense of any overdue mitigating action, and action is imperative for long term survival, the time for more 'listening' to deniers should have ended decades ago.
Examining theories with a critical eye and being a denier are not the same thing by far. Deniers examine theories with a pre-conception, and if it's not agreed with, they discard the theory, then figure out a reason why.
Deniers aren't 'skeptics', they're conspiracy theorists. The only way their argument stands up is if they can convince you that the overwhelming majority of scientists are actually not scientists, but are really just liars that somehow stand to make a fortune if they convince people of the big lie....to most people that's just nuts....and to reasonable people it's long past time to stop giving the nuts equal time and consideration.

You only answered half my question. The answer that proves this?

Nice anecdote. I assume by your smiley face that you know anecdotes are not proof of anything except an individuals experience.

In normal usage of the terms, denier and sceptic are synonymous. Although I do agree that there should be a distinction along the ways you've said.

It is lazy stone age thinking. You're not going to get anywhere if they're a roadblock and you don't spend the time convincing them otherwise. Do you really want to leave your fellow man behind? I think you should strive to put him on a better path. (I mean sceptics/deniers as a group - not on an individual level).

OK, the video's point, and your first 2 answers to it in the comments. @ChaosEngine explained how I see it quite well.

This 'anecdote' proved that you were wrong in your blanket assertion that condoms are only >98% effective in the lab, because condoms are >98% effective outside the lab....at least in one case I know of, and certainly others.

I do understand that deniers want to be called 'skeptics', but I also understand that that's not at all what they are.

I/we don't need to convince those that are clearly closed to convincing if I/we don't allow their obstinacy to be a road block to progress. Giving them more hearings, more time, and more chance to kick the can down the road gives them that opportunity.
I don't WANT to leave them behind, but I also won't die on the beach because Bubba wants to sit in the bus parked in the soft sand at the low tide line, and debate whether there is such a thing as a tide...especially when the tide is already 1/2 in, the motor's sputtering, and the wheels are under water. At some point one must decide to not let them and their never ending, constantly changing, factually challenged 'argument' doom all of us, even if it means ignoring their continuing argument and acting without their consent. I'm not sure we should kick them off the bus...but they are starting to mess with the driver and sometimes steal the keys....so it might come to that some day.

My first two comments weren't "answers to the video". They addressed one small aspect of the video and the side topic of presenting facts accurately. This is much is very obvious.

But you've still not given an actual quote that proves your assertion. Why are you bothering to fight something where I'm sure you know you are wrong?

I didn't make a "blanket assertion" that condoms are only 98% effective in the lab. I wrote "Real world data points to between 80% and 90% effectiveness (because people screw up)." This is a statistic. It doesn't point to an individual (who can achieve 100% success or 0% success). It points to the average of large populations. And I wrote that because the video made a statement without an important qualification. I'm sure you know this but are being stubborn. Why are you trying to fight these important statistics? From a public health perspective this is incredibly important information and trying to misrepresent the real world effectiveness of condoms can be harmful to the community when planning future health interventions.

Good luck with ignoring them and hoping they won't be a problem in the future. They'll be a spanner in the works unless they're appropriately addressed. And they can be appropriately addressed with a win win solution.

Have a good day then. I'm bored with this conversation and leaving it for another week.

Ok, I'll explain it.

It's a comedic piece, not a lecture on reproductive health.

It doesn't matter if condoms are 97, 80 or 50% effective. They are being used as a stand-in for something that HAS a 97% consensus on its accuracy.

Granted, it's not a completely perfect analogy (they are comparing efficacy to consensus), but it's poetic licence. In other words.....

it's a fucking joke.

As for writing people off, everyone is entitled to make mistakes, but really at this point climate deniers are up there with creationists, homeopaths, and flat earthers. There's only so much slack we can cut them, before we move the fuck on and say "If you believe that shit, you're an idiot"

Oh sorry, I used the word ridicule to describe the piece.... oh wait a minute: ridicule is a verb meaning; to make fun of, poke fun at, make jokes about, etc.

Like I wrote. The meaning of the video is clear. You have written nothing that I didn't already know.

But somehow you don't seem to be able to get over the fact that I didn't address the video's main theme (satire) and instead addressed a side issue that is important (at the very least) to me. People are not obliged to only address a topic's main theme and not side issues. You need to check yourself.

I hope you have an incredibly high IQ and perfect recall of all facts because if you don't, someone might be saying the same thing to you one day. In other words, there is always someone smarter than you, and you're always wrong about something.

You have a good day mate. It's getting a little boring explaining stuff. I might come back to it in a few weeks (or I might not).

Um, yes they were. It's just that rather than address the point of the video, you addressed a red herring tangent....from the video.

Harlequinn said:Condoms are 98% effective - lol. That's with perfect use. Real world data points to between 80% and 90% effectiveness (because people screw up).

That's an 'answer' to the part of the video saying they're 98% effective, which they are, when used properly (not with perfection). You continue to fight the fact that YOU were misleading, not just about your assertion, but also about the point of the video...or you simply missed the point completely....one or the other.
This is much is very obvious. Why are YOU bothering to fight something where I'm sure you know you are wrong in numerous ways?
but you continue with 'but you didn't quote me, so you didn't say anything'? If you can't follow along, I'll just stop....as what's the point?

Harlequinn said: Condoms are only >98% effective in lab settings.
And that's all I need to say about that. You were wrong about that, and now you want to distance yourself from your statement. I understand why you wouldn't want to stand behind it. As proof, condoms have been 100% effective in all settings I've used them.

Yes, it's an important statistic, and you have it wrong, or at best are poorly making the point by not clearly explaining that the 'failures' are all from misuse, not product failure.
When used properly, condoms are >98% effective in real life...not only in labs. Because so many people use them wrong doesn't make them less effective, it makes their USE of them less effective. The answer isn't to just tell people that 2/10 times they fail (scaring many people out of using them at all, while knowing full well that 99.9% of failures are due to improper usage, not defect)...it's to teach them how to properly use them so they work almost every time. Simple.
EDIT: People who use them wrong probably have <50% success rate, but that's like looking at first time drivers with no training and saying 'drivers have been shown to crash 75% of the time in real world situations'.
I'm bored with all conversations where one party can't grasp how what they actually said sounds to readers, even when it's explained clearly.

That said, my boredom with you won't stop me from correcting dangerously misleading information....like "Condoms are only >98% effective in lab settings." and " Real world data points to between 80% and 90% effectiveness." while leaving out 'but only among people with absolutely zero training in their use, because they use them wrong CAUSING the failures'.
Have a nice day.