Recycled,
with revisions
to shorten the
original article,
from April 2019:
In this article,
when I say "temperature",
I really mean the
surface global average
temperature anomaly,
in Celsius degrees.
You have to
get the
climate alarmist
to agree with
something you say,
that does NOT
label you as a
climate change skeptic.
For example, here in Michigan,
if the climate change subject ever
comes up, we point to the ground
and say:
"This property was covered
with a mile of ice 20,000 years ago --
it all melted in 10,000 years !"
That fact usually makes a climate
alarmist stop, and think -- and you can
tell they are thinking, because steam
is coming out of their ears !
We immediately add:
"Burning coal and gasoline
didn't cause all that ice to melt !"
It's impossible to argue with that,
since all the ice had melted
by 10,000 years ago !
And that's the end of the discussion.
The fact that a lot of global warming
can happen without burning fossil fuels,
has been stated.
But outside of Detroit,
Chicago or Canada,
I doubt if an ice glaciers
story is likely to have
much of an effect.
Here's an
alternative
argument.
alternative
argument.
For use after you
hear someone say
something like this:
'The future climate
will be a disaster,
unless we act now'.
Then you immediately ask:
"Is it possible the predictions
of a future climate crisis
could be wrong ?"
"Is it possible the predictions
of a future climate crisis
could be wrong ?"
If the answer is "NO",
you're talking to
an irrational person
and no debate is possible.
If you get this typical
climate alarmist
(non) answer,
more discussion
is possible:
more discussion
is possible:
"97% of scientists
say so --
we have to act now,
because if we wait
it will be too late !",
That's also irrational,
but you still have
a small chance
to change a mind.
Ask that person
a serious question:
"If the temperature
went up only
half a degree
in the next 80 years,
would you consider
that a crisis ? "
A rational climate alarmist
should say half a degree
warming in the next 80 years
would not be a crisis.
Immediately ask
if six tenths
of a degree warming
in the next 80 years
would be a disaster.
Hopefully not,
if half a degree warming
if half a degree warming
was not considered a disaster.
Then you get to the "punchlines":
"Did you know the temperature
went up only six tenths of a degree
in the past 78 years, as we added
lots of CO2 to the air every decade?"
Before they have a chance
to respond, you add:
"And did you know every increase
of CO2 has LESS of a warming effect
than the prior increase ?"
The typical response will be:
"Who told you that ? "
Your decisive answer:
"You may want to look it up
-- 100% of scientists agree
on what I've just told you !"
And of course
your 100%,
your 100%,
beats their 97% !
You have just made your point
about past climate change,
during the "age of man made CO2",
starting in 1940, 78 years ago.
And hopefully you have created doubt
that warming in the next 78 years
will be worse than in the past 78 years.
And you may have
changed one mind
about the irrational fear
of future global warming !
Quickly change the subject --
there's no need for more "debate".
And thanks for contributing
to the fight against
leftist climate change
scaremongering !
Richard Greene
Bingham Farms, Michigan