and slightly edited:
Of course the climate alarmist must
have some critical thinking skills
on the subject of climate science.
And the climate alarmist
must believe there's a possibility
predictions of the future climate
could be wrong,
Those two qualifications
may eliminate 99%
of all climate alarmists !
In this article, I try to keep the terms
simple, because I'm discussing
how to talk to climate alarmists,
who are usually simpletons
on the subject of climate science.
For example:
When I say "temperature", I really mean
the global average surface temperature
anomaly, in Celsius degrees.
"Debating" leftists is almost impossible,
because leftists don't debate anything
they believe in -- maybe for 30 seconds,
but they will either change the subject
( polite leftists ), or character attack
you ( "Are you a science denier? " )
to stop any debate !
You have to get the climate alarmist
to agree with something you say,
that does NOT immediately 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 --
then 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 !
Then we say:
"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.
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.
For use after you
hear someone say
something like this:
'The future climate
will be a disaster,
unless we act now'.
Ask if it's possible
the predictions
of a future
climate disaster
could be wrong.
If the answer is "NO",
you are talking to
an irrational person
-- no debate is possible.
You may also get the
typical climate alarmist
(non) answer:
"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 victory over
climate change ?"
A rational climate alarmist
( an oxymoron ? )
should say half a degree
warming in the next 80 years
would not be a disaster.
Then ask if six tenths
of a degree warming
in the next 80 years
would be a disaster.
Hopefully not,
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 year ?"
Before they have a chance
to respond, you add:
"And did you know every increase
of CO2 has LESS of a global warming effect than the prior increase ?"
The typical response:
"Who told you that ? "
Your decisive answer:
"You may want to look that up
-- 100% of scientists agree
on what I've just told you !"
You have made your point about
past climate change, during the
age of man made CO2,
starting in 1940, 78 years ago.
Hopefully,
you have created doubt
that global warming
in the next 78 years
has to be be worse
than in the past 78 years.
And you may have
changed one mind
about the irrational fear
of future global warming !
So quickly change the subject --
there's no need for any more
"debate".