Global Warming/Climate Change Discussion Thread

[Liquid]

Why can't I change my vote in this thread? My thoughts on the matter have changed.

Me too. I posted about it in 2018. I wouldn't mind having another go at the poll.

From what to what?

I've never doubted humanity's contribution to an inevitable process but to what degree has increased in my opinion.

 

[Joey D]

From what to what?

I changed mine from humans playing a minor role to human activity is playing a significant role.

I still do think some of the changes are cyclical to a degree. However, I think humans are speeding up the process exponentially and contributing to the more extreme swings we're seeing.

 

[Tired Tyres]

From what to what?

I've never doubted humanity's contribution to an inevitable process but to what degree has increased in my opinion.

I thought it was a natural thing before, now I think it is down to us in a major way.

 

[Danoff]

From what to what?

I've never doubted humanity's contribution to an inevitable process but to what degree has increased in my opinion.

I thought that the role that humans played was unclear, and that drawing conclusions while it was unclear was problematic. I have some background in the type of estimation theory that the IPCC contributing scientists use to create their models. I used to work for NASA and I would attend climate change talks by the people doing the work and listen to where they were refining their models, and it seemed like they were still working on some very basic things, like even whether the presence of clouds is a warming or cooling effect.

In that line of work, it's easy (well, relatively anyway) to "reconstruct" past data with a new model and say that you've come up with something great that fits the data super well, but unless it accurately predicts future data, it should be considered untested. It's just so easy to be missing a parameter, or multiple parameters that takes one of your variables - like the effect of CO2 - and blows it out of proportion. Imagine splitting the signal across 3 variables instead of 1, for example. You could find that your CO2 variable causes 1/3 as much warming. Solar flux, for example, is another variable being estimated. Right now we're getting significantly more solar flux than expected for this sun cycle.

Solar Cycle Progression | NOAA / NWS Space Weather Prediction Center

www.swpc.noaa.gov

So I did the same thing I did in my own field using the same estimation theory, I reserved judgement on the model until it could be said to have predicted data. That was a time consuming proposition. From the date a model was created it might take 5-10 years to get the data needed to show that the model was better than other models and was accurately predicting something unusual. In 2018 I went searching for some research showing how well past models predicted human data, and the accuracy was impressive. It was partially fueled by my experience seeing how much pollution existed in china.


Edit:

Some background on solar cycles.

Hello Solar Cycle 25

The previous cycle was the weakest cycle in 100 years. It seemed like we might get a break from the sun. This latest cycle was predicted to be stronger but on the same order as the previous cycle. It seems like the early results might be contradicting that prediction, so the sun is not going to help us out.

 

[Nielsen]

The presence of wildfires affecting various resort destinations somehow doesn’t stop the masses flying to their holiday hotels. However, it’s all good if you drove to the airport in an electric car. It goes to show how environmental responsibility is largely guided by sheep mentality and not a genuine desire to make a difference.

 

[Danoff]

The presence of wildfires affecting various resort destinations somehow doesn’t stop the masses flying to their holiday hotels. However, it’s all good if you drove to the airport in an electric car. It goes to show how environmental responsibility is largely guided by sheep mentality and not a genuine desire to make a difference.

So the way to prove to you that someone's environmental responsibility is guided by a desire to make a difference is for "the masses" to stop flying to vacations?

 

[Nielsen]

So the way to prove to you that someone's environmental responsibility is guided by a desire to make a difference is for "the masses" to stop flying to vacations?

If one claims to be environmentally responsible, then be consistent in your behavior. Buying a ticket to fly on a commercial airliner is one of the worst things you can do from an environmental standpoint, and many of the people doing it have subscribed to the climate bandwagon in other areas of life. This suggests to me that some people really don’t give a crap and just go with the flow. The hypocrisy needs to stop if the whole climate hysteria is to be taken seriously.

 

[UKMikey]

 

[Danoff]

If one claims to be environmentally responsible, then be consistent in your behavior.

So because people fly, those who care about the environment are hypocrites. You see the issue right? Hint: It's not clear that it's the same people

Buying a ticket to fly on a commercial airliner is one of the worst things you can do from an environmental standpoint, and many of the people doing it have subscribed to the climate bandwagon in other areas of life. This suggests to me that some people really don’t give a crap and just go with the flow. The hypocrisy needs to stop if the whole climate hysteria is to be taken seriously.

No true scotsman fallcy. If people are making changes to reduce their footprint, failing to make every change possible does not make them a hypocrite. Taking a plane flight does not mean you hate the environment.

You: "No one who cares about the environment would fly"
Facts: "Some people who care about the environment do fly"
You: "But nobody who really cared about the environment would fly"


Edit: It's worth noting that it's also a form of the fallacies of ad hominem and appeal to hypocrisy.

 

[Joey D]

Except some of us do care about the environment, but still need to do things like travel for work. Plus, life is short. You might want to travel and see things before they're no longer there or you're no longer here.

I care very much about the environment, but I also care about a job and living a happy life.

 

[Tommy_D]

So because people fly, those who care about the environment are hypocrites. You see the issue right? Hint: It's not clear that it's the same people

No true scotsman fallcy. If people are making changes to reduce their footprint, failing to make every change possible does not make them a hypocrite.

You: "No one who cares about the environment would fly"
Facts: "Some people who care about the environment do fly"
You: "But nobody who really cared about the environment would fly"


Edit: It's worth noting that it's also a form of the fallacies of ad hominem and appeal to hypocrisy.

It's an all or nothing mentality that keeps people feeling that they aren't the cause of the problem. It's much easier to sleep at night when you can point your finger at others instead of at yourself.

For me, I believe climate change is the biggest problem ever in human history. It will cause famine, migration, war and eventually the death of entire eco-systems that have been on this planet longer than human beings. And I believe we, human beings, are the cause of it. Because of this belief, I do my best to keep my impact relatively low. I know I could make it lower if I had the ability to live an agrarian lifestyle, working my land to provide my own food and giving up every single creature comfort I have in life, but that's not a reasonable request to make of people in our modern world. Just like saying, "The best way to save this planet is to kill yourself." Thats just not a reasonable request. So I try to do what I can to keep my impact a bit smaller than your average joe. I drive an electric car, I just installed solar panels on the roof of my house, I'm a vegetarian, I dont have any children, I do my best to reduce/reuse/recycle (in that order) to keep my impact on the environment low, etc. But, God forbid I want to take a vacation somewhere to see a part of the world that I'm trying to save. Yeah, nope, I'm a hypocrite. Point your finger at me.

 

[Nielsen]

So because people fly, those who care about the environment are hypocrites. You see the issue right? Hint: It's not clear that it's the same people

It’s clear. Otherwise I wouldn’t have brought it up.

No true scotsman fallcy. If people are making changes to reduce their footprint, failing to make every change possible does not make them a hypocrite. Taking a plane flight does not mean you hate the environment

I never said going on an airplane means that you hate the environment. I said it greatly undermines whatever efforts you might be doing on a daily basis to reduce your footprint.

 

[Danoff]

It’s clear. Otherwise I wouldn’t have brought it up.

Go ahead and explain how it's clear.

I never said going on an airplane means that you hate the environment. I said it greatly undermines whatever efforts you might be doing on a daily basis to reduce your footprint.

Actually you said:

It goes to show how environmental responsibility is largely guided by sheep mentality and not a genuine desire to make a difference.

Two things.

1) If you reduce your carbon emissions in one place and not another, your reduction is not undermined by the existence of the other. It would be worse if you had not reduced.
2) You're saying that they clearly are not genuine (not a true scotsman) because a person with a genuine desire to make a difference would not travel by plane.

Mistakes all around.

 

[Nielsen]

Go ahead and explain how it's clear.

I already did. If you on the one hand make sustainable changes in everyday life and on the other you decide to go on holiday by plane.

Actually you said:

From which you deduced that flying must amount to hating the environment? I’m not sure how you arrived at that conclusion. Not actually caring about the environment despite claiming otherwise is the mentality being pointed out here.

If you reduce your carbon emissions in one place and not another, your reduction is not undermined by the existence of the other. It would be worse if you had not reduced.

I’m talking about intentions here. There’s no authenticity in trying to reduce your footprint in everyday life if you are also prepared to go on holiday by airplane. Let’s say you buy an electric car under the premise of protecting the environment, but at the same find it reasonable to buy airplane tickets. That implies that the electric car purchase actually had nothing to do with being environmentally responsible despite wanting to leave that impression. That’s hypocrisy and in many cases it exposes the kind of mentality not based on independent decision-making, hence the sheep reference.

You're saying that they clearly are not genuine (not a true scotsman) because a person with a genuine desire to make a difference would not travel by plane.

Mistakes all around.

Don’t travel by airplane if you believe that human activity plays a role in climate change and you want to make a difference. If you do it anyway, then you really don’t want to make a difference. It’s really that simple.

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

If one claims to be environmentally responsible, then be consistent in your behavior. Buying a ticket to fly on a commercial airliner is one of the worst things you can do from an environmental standpoint, and many of the people doing it have subscribed to the climate bandwagon in other areas of life. This suggests to me that some people really don’t give a crap and just go with the flow. The hypocrisy needs to stop if the whole climate hysteria is to be taken seriously.

You kind of undermine any kind of objectivity you might have been trying to convey by including a word like "hysteria" in your argument.

 

[Nielsen]

You kind of undermine any kind of objectivity you might have been trying to convey by including a word like "hysteria" in your argument.

I wasn’t trying to convey objectivity.

 

[Sprite]

I have a friend on FB who I work with, they posted this last week with the phrase “I’ll just leave this hear”

After about a year of nonsense ramblings and pure anger posts interspersed with posts about buying and reading books on meditation I’ve just given up and unfollowed him.

I just give up with the stupidly of some people and have lost the will to converse with them. I’m now just going to pity them in silence.

Climate change is real and a danger to humanity and the other living creatures on this planet. If we want to continue living here for generations to come then we really need to buckle down and slow the warming if possible (we may have already gone past the point of no return without a significant scientific breakthrough in climate manipulation to restore the balance) and try and preserve what we can now.

Are we the sole cause? Maybe not, but we are damn sure an accelerant and have been since the Industrial Revolution.

 

[Hayden]

I already did. If you on the one hand make sustainable changes in everyday life and on the other you decide to go on holiday by plane.



From which you deduced that flying must amount to hating the environment? I’m not sure how you arrived at that conclusion. Not actually caring about the environment despite claiming otherwise is the mentality being pointed out here.



I’m talking about intentions here. There’s no authenticity in trying to reduce your footprint in everyday life if you are also prepared to go on holiday by airplane. Let’s say you buy an electric car under the premise of protecting the environment, but at the same find it reasonable to buy airplane tickets. That implies that the electric car purchase actually had nothing to do with being environmentally responsible despite wanting to leave that impression. That’s hypocrisy and in many cases it exposes the kind of mentality not based on independent decision-making, hence the sheep reference.



Don’t travel by airplane if you believe that human activity plays a role in climate change and you want to make a difference. If you do it anyway, then you really don’t want to make a difference. It’s really that simple.

With respect, we’ve had solar panels less than 12 months and it has completely cancelled out the CO2 airplane emissions that my wife and I have created in our 8 years together.

Google says 90KG C02 per passenger per hour. There’s two of us.

In early 2020 we went to America, across it and back (total 32 hours of flying) = 5760KG

We’ve been on an average of one interstate trip, averaging 2 hours each way, for each year that we’ve been together. (2 HRS x 2 ways x 2 people x 8 years) = 5760KG (funnily enough)


Total = 11520KG
C02 Reduction by solar = 11830.3KG
(Since late September last year)

I’m not a hypocrite, I’m not an environmentalist and there is a lot more I could be doing. That doesn’t mean that my $7000 investment in solar panels is not achieving anything. It also doesn’t mean I should chain myself to the ground for the rest of my life.

Plane travel is a huge C02 producer, which is why a lot of airlines offer carbon offset schemes. You simply pay a little extra for them to plant trees or invest in environmental projects. This is very popular here in Australia, and I’m sure most Tesla driving, green bleeding tree huggers would be ticking that box. Hell, even I tick the box.

We each make our own decisions on what we can and want to do for the environment. I can guarantee that you too, could do more to reduce your footprint.

Shaking your fist at the “sheep” isn’t helping things. Being deliberately elitist and divisive isn’t helping things. Trying, in whatever way you can and want to, is always helping things.

 

[Danoff]

I already did. If you on the one hand make sustainable changes in everyday life and on the other you decide to go on holiday by plane.

Oof. You're not trying to have a conversation.

From which you deduced that flying must amount to hating the environment? I’m not sure how you arrived at that conclusion. Not actually caring about the environment despite claiming otherwise is the mentality being pointed out here.

...and you're intentionally ignoring what I'm saying.

I’m talking about intentions here. There’s no authenticity in trying to reduce your footprint in everyday life if you are also prepared to go on holiday by airplane.

Nonsense.

Let’s say you buy an electric car under the premise of protecting the environment, but at the same find it reasonable to buy airplane tickets. That implies that the electric car purchase actually had nothing to do with being environmentally responsible despite wanting to leave that impression.

No it doesn't.

That’s hypocrisy

No it isn't. Reducing your carbon footprint in one place and not another is not hypocritical, it's just not purity.

and in many cases it exposes the kind of mentality not based on independent decision-making, hence the sheep reference.

Nonsense.

Don’t travel by airplane if you believe that human activity plays a role in climate change and you want to make a difference.

Here we are again with the purity test.

If you do it anyway, then you really don’t want to make a difference. It’s really that simple.

Nonsense. Reducing your carbon footprint in any respect is helpful.

I have a friend on FB who I work with, they posted this last week with the phrase “I’ll just leave this hear”
View attachment 1276221

Each of those is a real thing.

 

[Sprite]

Each of those is a real thing.

I don’t think it’s a case he doesn’t believe in them, if he doesn’t then he’s a total dimwit (trying to be polite) as we had a shared close friend and work colleague who died from Covid.

I think it’s more a case of he believes the government and by extension the media is hyping this issues up to cause a hysterical narrative to cause control of the public.

Saying that, he has recently posted about climate change again with images taken from the news reports this year vs years ago which make them look the same temps. FB then fact checked it and then his response was some string which stated FB admired Fact Checking was some leftist propaganda nonsense. So it’s not a huge stretch to say he’s so far gone as not to think they’re not real.

 

[MatskiMonk]

I said it greatly undermines whatever efforts you might be doing on a daily basis to reduce your footprint.

No you didn't, you said...

If you do it anyway, then you really don’t want to make a difference. It’s really that simple.

Neither of which are particularly factual.

My output is about 10t a year according to various online calculators. The one international return flight I've taken in the last 12 months equated to between 220kg of CO2 (Airline estimate) to 470kg (independent carbon offset site estimate).. so between 2-5% of my annual output.

On the other hand...

The CO2 footprint of the multiple cups of tea I drink each day is about 480kg per year, on account of using dairy milk.

So for context if I'd have made the small change of drinking tea without milk most of the time it would have offset my last 12 months of flying. Or vice versa, yes, flying would have undone that 12 months of milkless tea - I don't personally regard that as 'greatly undermining' anything really... perhaps if I'd gone Vegan, grown all my own food, given away my car, invested thousands in going solar, and still all that had been undone by one return international flight, yes I might agree it's 'greatly undermining' my efforts.

Of course these numbers will vary from person to person, but in reality, it's not an either/or situation, I'm not choosing milk in my tea OR flying to Germany. Choosing a steak instead of the vegan option, flying when I could catch the train, driving when I could catch a train, cycle or walk, leaving all my appliances on when I could turn them off, milk in my tea versus drinking it black, getting a new phone when my contract's up versus keeping the old one... these are all choices in which not taking the greener option might demonstrably undermine my commitment to cutting my CO2 - because in most cases the impact of doing so is most likely functionally trivial to me... Catching a 1hr 50min flight to Munich versus a 12 day cycling trip (each way) to try and achieve is simply in no way practical, nor comparable.

I'm sure most people would acknowledge they could do more to reduce their CO2 output. Labelling something people do comparatively infrequently as THE thing that defines if they care, versus - for instance - changing something they do everyday.

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

If one claims to be environmentally responsible, then be consistent in your behavior. Buying a ticket to fly on a commercial airliner is one of the worst things you can do from an environmental standpoint, and many of the people doing it have subscribed to the climate bandwagon in other areas of life. This suggests to me that some people really don’t give a crap and just go with the flow. The hypocrisy needs to stop if the whole climate hysteria is to be taken seriously.

I think we should evaluate this. Lets say you driver a normal gas/petrol car, you have natural gas heating, natural gas hot water heater, your home is connected to natural gas powerplants, and you take 1 vacation on a plane. This is based on US data.

Typical US Household power consumption per year: 10,632khw
Typical natural gas emissions for power generation: 0.45kg/khw
Typical US Household emissions via electricity generation (if provided by natural gas): 4,784kg/yr

Typical US motorist driven miles per year: 13,000 miles
Typical petrol emissions: 0.4kg/mile
Typical US motorist emissions from driving: 5,200kg/yr

Typical Gas Furnace emissions: 2900kg
Typical gas water heater emissions: 1000kg/yr

Typical aviation emissions: 90kg/passenger/hour
16 hours worth of flying = 1440kg

In this scenario, the person is responsible for about 15,000kg of C02 being released in a year, based on only the above (this is actually quite close to the per/capita C02 emissions in the US). 10% of that is from the 16 hour flight, which is an above average duration. The actual worst thing you can do from a pure C02 release standpoint is to have your electricity be provided by natural gas because there are (typically) better options with minimal tradeoff and low effort, unlike air travel which has basically no alternatives. Second worst thing is driving a conventional gas/petrol car (as a daily driver) as even a conventional hybrid can cut that figure in half.

To say that a person would be hypocritical for taking a flight while holding environmentalist views is clearly not supportable, as long as they aren't flying 5+ times a year purely for recreation. It's not rational and counterproductive to have a purity test for something as complex as carbon footprint, particularly if you actually break it down into the numbers - it's a wholistic picture. If you are proactively trying to reduce it and netting a result, you're doing the right thing.

edit: If you really think about it (as an alternative to spouting right wing talking points I mean), commercial airliners (as noted above) produce 90kg/hour per passenger of C02. If you extrapolate this out to C02 emissions per mile, assuming an average speed of 500mph, you'll find that translates to actually less emissions per mile than driving, on a per passenger basis and comparing to a conventional gas/petrol powered car.

 

[Tommy_D]

I think we should evaluate this. Lets say you driver a normal gas/petrol car, you have natural gas heating, natural gas hot water heater, your home is connected to natural gas powerplants, and you take 1 vacation on a plane. This is based on US data.

Typical US Household power consumption per year: 10,632khw
Typical natural gas emissions for power generation: 0.45kg/khw
Typical US Household emissions via electricity generation (if provided by natural gas): 4,784kg/yr

Typical US motorist driven miles per year: 13,000 miles
Typical petrol emissions: 0.4kg/mile
Typical US motorist emissions from driving: 5,200kg/yr

Typical Gas Furnace emissions: 2900kg
Typical gas water heater emissions: 1000kg/yr

Typical aviation emissions: 90kg/passenger/hour
16 hours worth of flying = 1440kg

In this scenario, the person is responsible for about 15,000kg of C02 being released in a year, based on only the above (this is actually quite close to the per/capita C02 emissions in the US). 10% of that is from the 16 hour flight, which is an above average duration. The actual worst thing you can do from a pure C02 release standpoint is to have your electricity be provided by natural gas because there are (typically) better options with minimal tradeoff and low effort, unlike air travel which has basically no alternatives. Second worst thing is driving a conventional gas/petrol car (as a daily driver) as even a conventional hybrid can cut that figure in half.

To say that a person would be hypocritical for taking a flight while holding environmentalist views is clearly not supportable, as long as they aren't flying 5+ times a year purely for recreation. It's not rational and counterproductive to have a purity test for something as complex as carbon footprint, particularly if you actually break it down into the numbers - it's a wholistic picture. If you are proactively trying to reduce it and netting a result, you're doing the right thing.

edit: If you really think about it (as an alternative to spouting right wing talking points I mean), commercial airliners (as noted above) produce 90kg/hour per passenger of C02. If you extrapolate this out to C02 emissions per mile, assuming an average speed of 500mph, you'll find that translates to actually less emissions per mile than driving, on a per passenger basis and comparing to a conventional gas/petrol powered car.

You cannot rationalize with someone who bases their decisions on feelings by showing them facts. It never works. I try not to argue with these people as it is a complete waste of my time. Instead I lead by example and show them that a cleaner lifestyle doesn't have to be the sacrifice the feel it will be. When they see that I'm doing just fine they usually come to me and ask how I did it.

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

You cannot rationalize with someone who bases their decisions on feelings by showing them facts. It never works. I try not to argue with these people as it is a complete waste of my time. Instead I lead by example and show them that a cleaner lifestyle doesn't have to be the sacrifice the feel it will be. When they see that I'm doing just fine they usually come to me and ask how I did it.

I think its always worth trying to get people to think about something more critically.

 

[Tommy_D]

I think its always worth trying to get people to think about something more critically.

Sure, but if someone only bases their decisions on feelings then facts don't matter to them. You have to appeal to their feelings first and once you do that, then you can slowly trickle in some facts. You cant just start with facts. That only leads to arguments.

 

[UKMikey]

Sure, but if someone only bases their decisions on feelings then facts don't matter to them. You have to appeal to their feelings first and once you do that, then you can slowly trickle in some facts. You cant just start with facts. That only leads to arguments.

👍

View attachment 1276447

On the other hand, it doesn't hurt to establish a factual case for other people reading the thread even if the person you're responding to won't be convinced. Sometimes the most you can hope for is to be an example to others.

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

Sure, but if someone only bases their decisions on feelings then facts don't matter to them. You have to appeal to their feelings first and once you do that, then you can slowly trickle in some facts. You cant just start with facts. That only leads to arguments.

I'd like to give @Nielsen the benefit of the doubt that his position isn't based on emotion, because that would be silly.

 

[Danoff]

You have to appeal to their feelings first and once you do that, then you can slowly trickle in some facts.

I know you don't mean it this way, but this is describing psychological manipulation. It is an accurate description of how many of the people you're talking about (and @UKMikey's NDGT) got into the position they are in. You can use reason to get someone out of psychological manipulation, and I have done so (with someone who had a strong background in critical thinking and was already amendable to help), but it is not easy. Theramintrees describes such an adventure in one of his best videos (losing faith):



Leading by example of course is not psychological manipulation. But it's also not really appealing to emotions. It's just a way of letting someone else take some ownership of the conversation, which is an important aspect of any conversation. Similarly, letting someone know that you understand their feelings, or that their feelings are valid if for no other reason than that they are having them, is not psychological manipulation. It is a calming process which can enable someone to let go of their emotional state before engaging in a critical thinking exercise.

What you're ultimately describing is someone who lacks critical thinking, or has a critical thinking skillset that is underdeveloped in some key aspect. And these people tend to be more susceptible to psychological manipulation.

 

[Tommy_D]

I know you don't mean it this way, but this is describing psychological manipulation. It is an accurate description of how many of the people you're talking about (and @UKMikey's NDGT) got into the position they are in. You can use reason to get someone out of psychological manipulation, and I have done so (with someone who had a strong background in critical thinking and was already amendable to help), but it is not easy. Theramintrees describes such an adventure in one of his best videos (losing faith):



Leading by example of course is not psychological manipulation. But it's also not really appealing to emotions. It's just a way of letting someone else take some ownership of the conversation, which is an important aspect of any conversation. Similarly, letting someone know that you understand their feelings, or that their feelings are valid if for no other reason than that they are having them, is not psychological manipulation. It is a calming process which can enable someone to let go of their emotional state before engaging in a critical thinking exercise.

What you're ultimately describing is someone who lacks critical thinking, or has a critical thinking skillset that is underdeveloped in some key aspect. And these people tend to be more susceptible to psychological manipulation.

Sure. I'm not trying to manipulate people, but I know I can't just spout off facts to someone who doesn't use facts (or is not open to using facts) as a means of decision making. However, appealing to someone's feelings, if that's how they base their decisions, isn't really manipulation. It's speaking in their language. If someone is a visual learner but is only being taught in an auditory way, then that person will tune out and not understand what you are saying. Change the way you are teaching that person to a way they can learn (in this case to a more visual medium) and all of a sudden, they learn. The end lesson is the same, but it's being approached by different means. The manipulation you speak of comes from appealing to someone's feelings then giving them "alternative facts" to control their decision making. Once that "feeling" is in them, it's hard to show them otherwise.

 

[Danoff]

Sure. I'm not trying to manipulate people, but I know I can't just spout off facts to someone who doesn't use facts (or is not open to using facts) as a means of decision making. However, appealing to someone's feelings, if that's how they base their decisions, isn't really manipulation. It's speaking in their language. If someone is a visual learner but is only being taught in an auditory way, then that person will tune out and not understand what you are saying. Change the way you are teaching that person to a way they can learn (in this case to a more visual medium) and all of a sudden, they learn. The end lesson is the same, but it's being approached by different means.

People aren't really "visual" learners or otherwise, but I take your meaning anyway.

The manipulation you speak of comes from appealing to someone's feelings then giving them "alternative facts" to control their decision making. Once that "feeling" is in them, it's hard to show them otherwise.

Basically you're distinguishing between emotional manipulation and "speaking their language" by what you decide to teach them. That's not a great distinction.

If you're trying to change someone's mind based on how what you say makes them feel, you're playing a game that's not rooted in truth but in emotional payoff. And you can lose that game to lies easily. If you're trying to change someone's mind by using their feelings to get them to believe what you want them to, that's emotional manipulation.

I agree that you can't just spout off facts to someone who has no critical thinking skills. But "speaking their language" is also a way to foreclose reaching the truth. Because "their language" doesn't necessarily lead to the truth. Ultimately you have to motivate the person to use whatever critical thinking they do have.