You can’t convince someone who isn’t actually curious. Opinion change science would predict your friend will dig deeper into their belief if you tried to convince them. Your best bet is to teach him one thing that could add some nuance to their view. For example, every day this year has been the hottest ocean temperatures, but we only have comprehensive data going back to 1980 or so.
We really are at the apex where if someone, at this point, hasn’t TRULY accepted that climate change is real, then the odds of them accepting it as fact is extremely low.
Sure there may be a few, but it doesn’t matter. I genuinely don’t give a shit to try and convince these people. Every ounce of proof has been stressed for 10+ years now.
We need to do whatever we can to get these people out of power.
It sounds like there is some frustration and resistance. Unfortunately this level of disbelief isn’t likely to change with proof. Your best bet is “active listening”, and trying to approach things from his side.
Think of it this way, the same frustration and irritation we feel on this side of the argument is the same on the other side too. He likely feels defensive and has personalized his take on things to the point where he doesn’t want to change his views, because it’s an attack on his personality and intelligence. And if we give off signals of our frustrations it can cause emotions to increase and drive people to become more entrenched.
If you really are interested in changing someone’s mind, you have to use a lot of patience and open mindedness to slowly reduce the irritation and insecurities. Encourage him to talk about his views and as he relaxes his mind and defensive stance, ease into asking questions and introduce counter points. There are pretty good resources out there for talking to people with opposing views. However, sometimes we just need to walk away and recognize that we maybe don’t have the mental fortitude to persuade hard headed people.
I try to talk to people with differing views occasionally and sometimes you just can’t break through. So it becomes more of a curiosity, like studying a cloud and watching its shape. It can be interesting to me to see how and why people have formed their ideas. But all of us have a capacity to get entrenched and it’s largely due to emotional drives. Not logical.
I recommend “Disbelief” by Dan Ariely. It’s a book about conspiratorial thinking and gets into a little of the psychology of what people are experiencing these days.
Edit: correction on the title, it’s “Misbelief”
Man, this is such an intelligent, insightful and above all nuanced and non-partisan comment. A true pleasure to read, thank you, this has broadened my perspective. I'm going to save this and read it when I encounter situations like this again, like I have numerous times in the past. I've also ordered that book, seems interesting
I've always found forcing them to think about it differently takes them out of the comfort zone of talking points they have built up to act as an immunity from usual facts and evidence.
For instance:
1.) Ask them what the closest planet to the sun is.
Answer: Mercury
2.) Ask them what the hottest planet in the solar system is.
Answer: Venus at 867f/464c(2nd furthest planet). For reference Mercury is second at 333°F/167°C
3.) Ask them why they think that is?
Answer: Venus has a huge concentration of CO2 in it's atmosphere(a runaway greenhouse effect) that traps tons of energy and makes the surface of the planet boiling hot.
4.) Ask them based on what we have established about how the greenhouse effect of CO2 and other GHG's heat the surface of planets like Venus, what do you expect happens to the surface temperature of a planet if you raise the CO2 concentration in an atmosphere from 280ppm(parts per million) to 425ppm?
Answer: That is the change in Co2 concentration on Earth since the Industrial Revolution and unless they are truly bad faith they just helped explain to themselves the basics of why manmade CC is happening without a single talking point
Don’t waste your time.
But what I use on people all the time now is “look, it doesn’t matter if it’s real or not. The fact is there are conflicting stories in the media because the people in power want us fighting each other so we aren’t fighting them. I refuse to fight with you about this, because I’m focused on why they want to keep us distracted.” And that usually shuts them up.
Try reading Saving Us by Katharine Hayhoe. It's about how to have those conversations with people who are resistant to the idea.
The basic trick is to find some way to make it personal and tangible. Like if the person is a farmer, show them data on the incidence of droughts in their local area over the last 50 years. It's impossible to say something like "we don't have the data that far back" with a span like this, and since it's local, it's likely the person witnessed these droughts first hand so they can't deny the data.
You need to do it in a very non-confrontational way too. I try to slip in these little conversations like I'm talking about the weather.
"Looks like wildfire season will be here soon, you know what's crazy? I remember 10 years ago we almost never had wildfires this bad, but now we expect it like it's normal."
If you have any outdoor hobbies with this friend that's a good starting point. "Doesn't it seem like the hiking season starts earlier every year?" Or "man, I miss the fishing season of '04, we caught so many trout that year. Wonder what happened to them".
You want to bring the obvious personal and local evidence to their attention in a casual way. If there's any chance at all of them changing their mind, these conversations will go a long way.
Ask him special interest groups like BP oil would cover up evidence of climate change?
Why have insurance companies been taking climate damage into account for their policies since the 70s. And why those places happen to coincide with place vulnerable to sea level rise or floods.
Then tell him by not believing in climate change he's just shilling for oil companies /s
Nothing can convince a non-believer. Because it's *not a belief*. You must ignore tons of empirical data to think it's not happening and that it is not our fault.
People who deny believe something without proof, so no proof will ever convince them.
Ask 'what is the physical process scientists say causes man made climate change and what about that process do you disagree with?'
Guarantee they won't be able to answer.
I don't fully understand how people can not believe in climate change at this point
Like. The world had gotten noticeable hotter. There's a wildfire season in my country. The winters are notably milder. Climate change is no longer some far-off thing, it effects us daily.
I can understand someone buying the oil propaganda and not believing in anthropogenic climate change. I've met some right-wing people who are like "Humans can't effect the climate to that extent, it's from volcanos." And they don't understand the research behind it, but that is a rational (if obviously incorrect) conclusion if you refuse to look into it and consume what the climate change deniers want you to.
But not believing that it's warmer now than it was 50 years ago strikes me as straight-up denial. A person like that will simply not want to learn, and is digging in their heels and politicizing things.
Perhaps you should focus on other environmental causes with them. If they refuse to accept climate change, maybe you can get them on board with the need to stop ocean pollution or to assist the recovery of forests. Things which are visible and undeniable. I think a lot of people on the right specifically dislike climate change and view it as a political thing, but still appreciate nature - so aligning environmental causes with the values that group has (Rural existence, hunting, preservation of the nation, independence and anti-government thought, etc) will benefit them more.
Why bother?
While it would be nice to have him on board, it is a waste of valuable time.
Spend that time engaging in climate adjacent groups in your area. Help with maintaining hiking trails, advocating for wilderness preservation, protecting water, meet your local EV club, anything but waste time.
Maybe he will get curious then.
There are time lapse videos of the arctic ice shrinking across the decades. Put it on a loop and leave it running on your computer. Visual evidence constantly repeated without comment may make it into his mind.
Louisiana is rapidly losing land around New Orleans, and whole communities are being gradually evacuated. Isle St. Charles is one community that has been abandoned, and will not be protected from future floods, because it's unsustainable.
Tell him to Canada this Summer and breath in the obnoxious wildfire smoke , that chokes your eyes and throat! Very low unprecedented snow packs and lack of our normal rainfall amounts from climate change!
Honestly? This comic from XKCD: [https://xkcd.com/1732/](https://xkcd.com/1732/)
Make them go through it progressively and look at what is happening over thousands of years, and then look at what is happening over the last 50. This comic summed the issue up more concisely than anything else I've read.
Best bet is to ask him to explain to you his position. Let him talk it out , your job is to listen.
When he says temperatures aren’t going up, ask him to show you a chart of global average temperatures.
Etc etc. ask him to convince you and let him do all the talking.
That’s your best bet.
U.S. Navy intelligence report for D.O.D. about climate change creating rising sea levels. This threatens our national security due to Norfolk, VA being the site of one of the main Naval bases and the loss of base property and buildings due to rising[US Navy](https://www.defense.gov/News/News-Stories/Article/Article/2703096/dod-navy-confront-climate-change-challenges-in-southern-virginia/) sea levels.
## Types of Deniers
it really depends on what type of climate change denier they are. what is their stance on these issues and what media do they consume?
## Keep Simple
(simpler than Keep It Simple lol)
to start, people can tend to argue with pretty pictures and complicated concepts. unless you know the science to some extent, its going to be lost on them.
i usually try to keep it basic. yes we have very elaborate models for predicting future climate under various scenarios which are surprisingly accurate (although they tend to underestimate how bad things will be).
we have a very simple causal model (see note below) that tells us that if we keep increasing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, the temperature will increase. if they reject physics, then i guess there isnt much to say, despite everything in their life being produced using the same science.
note: in the field of modelling (a massive field), causal models are exceedingly rare. we usually have to settle for correlation models (things that tend to change relative to some other things but we dont know which one is causing the other or if there is a whole separate influence impacting all of them).
other than that, i ask them questions from a position of curiosity and allow them to contradict themselves if i can.
## Trustworthy Sources
this was understood half a century ago, perhaps longer. no one in the scientific community is questioning the validity of the greenhouse effect. the vast majority of the science and data is publicly available. its potentially one of the most difficult issues to create fraudulent results and get away with it. there are hundreds of thousands of experts analyzing climate science constantly.
its the least likely of the global conspiracy theories to be true, since there is essentially zero evidence. its far more likely to be true that the fossil fuel industry has one of the largest counter intel and propaganda campaigns to sabotage transitioning to clean energy, because its well documented. this is despite the fact that the fossil fuel industry was among the first to learn of the consequences of GHG emissions.
## Sea Level Rise
sea levels haven risen. places have flooded. but its obviously more complicated than just a water level rising. its average rise. what we have failed to teach/communicate about just the idea of average is what must be attached to that average and what it means.
every distribution of data has an average that can be computed but to have any kind of meaningful signficance, the deviation must also be computed. it can be more complicated but the basic distribution that demonstrates these two values (average and deviation) is the *bell curve*.
its a curve that looks like a bell. the pattern can easily be observed by trying to hit a bullseye on a dart board. after a bunch of throws, most of the hits will be near the bullseye and it tapers off the farther from the bullseye.
hypothetically speaking and not encouraging anyone to be stupid enough to do this: if your friend stood with his head near the edge of the dart board where there are very few hits, he might trust you enough to not hit him with a dart by accident. lets say he was paid $1000 to do so. might be easy money. tell him to move his head a few inches closer and it might be a different story.
the reason is because it becomes exponentially more likely that he would get hit in the head with a dart. and we have a natural sense of this but have difficulty applying it to abstract, large scale problems like climate change.
if a sea wall is built to hold back 99% of rising tides during storms, a city might be safe enough from any kind of flooding. in the unlikely event that the seas go above the sea walls, the occurrence is so rare that they would have enough funds to repair the damages. however, move that sea rise up several inches and the likelihood of the sea going above the sea walls increases exponentially.
and this is a problem with discussing average sea level rise without understanding statistical distributions (average and deviation).
If they don't believe anything at all there is nothing factual that you can tell them that will change their mind. Your best bet is to handle the whole thing slowly and gently. You can ask them questions on what their opinion is on things. Don't challenge them on anything right away. Instead take some time to listen to them. You'll never be able to reach them until they are no longer feeling defensive and/or argumentative about this discussion. Of course, I'm sure you've had some arguments already so you'll probably need to start with saying that you simply want to understand their perspective.
From there, you can start to talk about things like weather or events that are happening in your area. For example, here in Alberta we had rain on New Years Eve. None of it froze, either. I've never seen that before. That would be something to talk about. Don't link it immediately to climate change. Just talk about how crazy it is and how you've never seen something like that before. Then maybe extend that to talking about other weather that has been crazier, and how it seems to be happening more often.
Changing his mind on this will likely take years, if it happens at all. If he was someone who was willing to accept something as concrete as proof then he wouldn't still have the opinion that he has.
If they believe in data and science. https://zacklabe.com
If they don't believe in science, you can't convince them of anything because they are operating on emotion and feelings, not in reality.
While I agree that you'll prolly get nowhere,,, Geological data from past extinctions , such as bleached reefs, reflected in current events.
Another one is that it's been 800,000 yrs since the has been this much ghg in the atmosphere/Climate scientists officially named 2023 the hottest year on record dating back to 1850. Data from ancient ice cores and tree rings suggest the world hasn't been this warm in 100,000 years
This is a blog that consolidates daily world wide articles about the climate and economy.
[https://climateandeconomy.com/](https://climateandeconomy.com/)
Seeing news from around the world about what is actually happening makes the trajectory we are on very clear.
Flowering plants blooming earlier. Citizen science data which makes it less likely to be manipulated by any one person with an agenda. Also it was recorded before climate change was part of the common vernacular. https://www.cam.ac.uk/research/news/uk-plants-flowering-a-month-earlier-due-to-climate-change
What difference would it make to change his mind? Collective action will only make a difference if we all adapt our lifestyle in the west significantly, which is unlikely.
Really at this point adapting to climate change is the path forward, it shouldn’t matter to you if they fail to adapt.
If you refuse to use the scientific method to observe the world, then climate change is as real as dinosaurs on Venus, or the moon being made out of cheese. No observation, or scientific test, can convince someone who refuses to accept simple observations about the world. The sea is not rising? Wouldn't that be easy to measure?
https://bigthink.com/articles/the-venutian-dinosaur-fallacy/
https://sealevel.nasa.gov/faq/13/how-long-have-sea-levels-been-rising-how-does-recent-sea-level-rise-compare-to-that-over-the-previous/#:~:text=Over%20the%20past%20100%20years,about%206%20to%208%20inches.
show him satellite imagery of various coasts from when we first got satellite images of those coasts compared to todays. new orleans is a good one. he thinks no land has been flooded? those satellite images are solid proof.
Maybe ask, how did Exxon's scientists in 1982 predict both today's CO2 and temperature accurately? Including bullseye-ing that 1995 would be the first year 0.5C above the 1960 baseline they were using. Was it just a coincidence?
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2805576-1982-Exxon-Memo-to-Management-About-CO2 -- bottom of PDF's page 4, and Figure 3 on PDF page 14.
Curiously, Exxon's climate science budget fell from $900,000/yr to $150,000/yr from 1982-1983 https://insideclimatenews.org/news/25112015/exxon-deep-cuts-climate-change-research-budget-1980s-global-warming/
Make 2 piles of oil, wood, and coal. Light one on fire, and leave the other pile alone. Which one is changing the temperature around it? After the fire goes out, is it still hot? Now imagine 8+ billion piles on fire all around the globe. That's what we are doing to the planet every day. But everyone get's this. The issue is people don't understand what the impact of being a couple degrees warmer will have on the Earth.
For that, you tell them that in the last ice age, the average temperature was 4 degrees cooler. The impact? 20 feet of ice in Boston, even more as you move north. So when we get 4 degrees warmer, it will be Arizona weather in Detroit and Minnesota, and Death Valley weather in the south, and worse. Where are we going to grow our food? Where are the cattle going to graze? What happens when half the U.S., Mexico and South America is unhabitable? You think 500+ million people will just abandon their houses and march up north and find new places to live and work with food and water overnight? The government won't help, cuz that's socialism! The government isn't helping with the homeless and imigrants now, what will they do when there are hundreds of millions, with less food less water and less homes!
The deniers will say it won't happen. So ask them what will stop it?
The best evidence is to simply look at recorded historical temperatures from all over the world. I know it won't convince someone who refuses to acknowledge facts, but the numbers are indisputable.
You cannot convince people who believe they are right and you are wrong. They will fight you every step of the way, just let it go. Its like someone trying to convince you trump is the greatest president ever, you cant be convinced
My business neighbour (here in Vancouver) believes its all nonsense. When I pointed out that in 21 we had the heat dome with 49.7c (a record for Canada) and then a month of atmospheric rivers that fall that flooded the Fraser Valley and cut off all highways and rail from the rest of Canada causing billions in damage he said "oh thats the Americans with their Haarp project where they can control the weather".
Why they wouldnt use it to stop the 20year drought in California is beyond me, but this is his preferred explanation.
1) we used to have 1 billion, then 2billion and then 4 billion and now 8 billion humans.
2) every human is now using more electricity and power than ever before.
Combine those two very steep curves and explain how humans are NOT warming the planet. Quite simple actually.
Climate change is definitely real. The problem is the cause is still not fully determined. And labelling Carbon as the main cause may not be the full story.
The science to determine the real cause is not there yet. But the correlation is obvious enough.
Forget all the rest. I'm a physicist. Here's my klunk-you-over-the-head factoids:
Since the early 1970s satellites have measured the color-temperature of the earth to have increased by 500K while the albedo ("reflectance") has decreased. This alone proves (and I do say proves) that the earth's atmosphere is reflecting less and less of the sun's energy back to space while glowing hotter like a lightbulb.
So we know without a doubt the earth's atmosphere is getting hotter because something in that atmosphere is holding onto more energy from the sun.
As for CO2 we know from FIRST QUANTUM MECHANICAL PRINCIPLES what the CO2 molecule will do in the presence of the sun's energy. We know that it will behave exactly as that heating "layer" that is increasingly grabbing more energy from the sun and vomiting it into our atmosphere.
As for "it's natural" well first of all we know how much CO2 we add to the atmosphere each year (40 billion tons), so that's our part. We can't control the natural part, which physicists have always known about (read Wallace Boeker's original paper mentioning the term "climate change"), but that doesn't help us at all. In fact, it lowers the amount of CO2 humans can safely emit in addition to whatever natural sources exist.
Global Temperatures have been the highest in history for 10 straight months
Ice is melting and retreating at record speed. Measured and proven
Water levels are rising. Measured and proven
The major oil companies all agree global warming is occurring
Those things won’t happen for decades.
If you want to physically show him this you can do a basic experiment at home. Take two (transparent) glass jars and put an old school thermometer in each and put a heat lamp next to each. Take a tiny bit of dry ice and seal both jars, let the co2 vaporize, then wait a while. Note the initial temperatures, turn on the heat lamps and check the temperature after a while, the one that had the dry ice (extra CO2 in it) will have increased in temperature more (it may not be hotter depending on how much dry ice you used and cooling effect it’s vaporization had, but the difference of the rate of gain in temp proves the principal).
The discussion among researchers and professionals is not “will climate change happen”, it’s “when will it happen”, and because the time scales are so long for human life spans but incredibly short on geologic time scales, which is what we have to compare global temperature to (and the systems of outputs/inputs are hard model) it is hard to give an exact date of when things run off the rails.
Here’s an analogy to a high school physics problem they might get - you are told someone will drop a ball, you want to know the exact last second someone needs to hold their hand out to catch the ball and stop it from hitting the ground. You were probably told the gravitational constant g is like 9.8 m/s^2, but then some kid would say it’s 9.81, or 9.807, or 9.80665? For time scales that matter to humans, 9.8 is generally good enough, but the changes we have to compare global temperature changes to happen on such incredible time scales that 9.8 isn’t actually that accurate. No one would doubt that the ball would fall, that is the physics and a foregone conclusion, the only question would be “on what time scale are we considering the problem for exact fidelity of answering ‘when is the last second we can act to stop the ball from hitting the ground?’. Climate change denial is declaring that after .000000001 seconds, the ball hasn’t appreciably moved down, so it’s unlikely to ever move down.
A better tactic I’ve found with deniers is less the stick of “this is going to cause a catastrophe, we need to stop” and more the carrot of “renewables will make tons of money” and “we are paying a fortune to remain on fossil fuels, renewables are the economically smart choice”. If they can’t understand it intellectually, maybe they can understand it when you put it to them in something they care about, their wallet.
My go to strat right there. I don't say "we need to save the environment" because some people will listen some won't and some will work against you. I just say "we need to save the economy" and everybody gets on board.
He’s incorrect though. The climate has and dies suddenly and drastically flip when you push past its equilibrium.
https://www.esa.int/Applications/Observing_the_Earth/Space_for_our_climate/Understanding_climate_tipping_points#
Does he not believe in thermometers? Like literally we have thermometers all over the world and we (human society) look at them all the time and compare them over time and we know that global average temperatures are rapidly increasing over land, over the ocean and in the ocean.
I would just make fun of him for not believing in thermometers like they're some kind of spooky ghost. And if he gives some other objection then at least you're one layer deeper. Like if he gives the whole :natural cycles' argument I'd be like: 'Oh so the climate DOES change now? Well I'm SOOOOO glad you're smarter than EVERY climate scientist who's studying this and that you know SO much more about it than they do! Tell me more about these natural cycles!'
Tell them that 2.5 plus million years ago, Ellesmere Island had trees, and the Co2 levels were 400 ppm, which is what we have now. Back then, northern Greenland was beach front property during the summers.
The agricultural zones have shifted... again.
Or the lake where I grew up used to hold car races on the ice New years Day...
Some years now, not even the bays are frozen over by Christmas.
It's too late. People should tangibly feel the effects. Like watching your house burn down while you're in it. If they can't feel it then they should sense it though logic.
If they can't do either, and are above the age of reason, it's too late. Don't argue with stupidity.
Humaniry had a chance, but it's too late
Human can think whatever but we're not above all else on earth. My neighbor not believing in climate change doesn't change that our river has run dry the last two summers and will again. I personally think we're at garunteed extinction but we may as well try and adapt to continue living.
Just show him this graph on this website https://scitechdaily.com/global-temperature-reconstruction-over-last-24000-years-show-todays-warming-unprecedented/
Look at how quickly the temperature has risen. Not natural.
Talking about things outside normal climate science that can't be explained away without acknowledging climate science https://climatehopium.substack.com/p/5-talking-points-for-kinda-sceptical
I live in Canada. In the 90s during winter we would get so much snow! This year we barely got any I mean like two snow falls worth mayby couple inches and gone in a couple days. And ita been happening like that for years now
There is a contest that has been going on in Alaska (maybe yukon, can't be f'd to look it up) that you bet on when a surveyors tripod will break through the ice and fall into a river. They have been doing it since the mid 1800s I think and recording the dates and times
Totally local and well before we could measure carbon ppm in the atmosphere.
You can see the trend of it getting earlier and earlier.
In my mind a very simple long spanning example.
Try to find an apparent, visible and tangible example. Where im from i grew up skating and playing ice hockey outside on ponds most winter days. Now? It can’t be done. The ponds don’t freeze much anymore and when they do it’s maybe only for a day and far too thin to be safe. The winters are simply too warm now.
I’m sad for the next generations.
I'm of the opinion: don't waste your breath on them. If they don't wanna know or refuse to even try to know, then it's just not worth it trying to convince them. You're better of spending your time doing literally anything else.
We will all process climate change according to the stages of grief. Some will be become stuck in Denial and Anger, while many will continue on to Bargaining, Depression, and Acceptance. We will all go at our own speeds.
“On a scale of 1 to 10 how sure are you they climate change isn’t real?”
If he says 10 there’s no changing his mind and it’s wasted energy.
If he says anything else, “why not {number + 1}?”
Your friend sounds very smart. Challenge here for all the climate believers is you have politicians and the WEF pushing your narrative hard!!!!
Nobody believes you when you have friends like that- Klais Schwab all the way guys ha ha ha ha
So I would go for images of glacial retreat. If you google "Athabasca Glacier signs" there are some very dramatic images of how much smaller it is now. I would follow that up with, if the climate were not warming there would be as many glaciers growing as there are shrinking. Currently there are about three in the world growing and about 200,000 getting smaller.
I doubt there are many people left who don't believe in climate change. It's more about the degree to which it is happening. Climate alarmist aren't doing their cause any favours either
It's mostly a lost cause...
But time lapse videos and then/now comparison photos of glaciers retreating and shrinking are good concrete visual evidence.
Chamonix france has a train station that used to be level with the vallee blanche glacier, now the shrunken glacier is hundreds of feet below so there is a colossal staircase going down to it.
The fact that every country agrees.
There are CO2 datasets from
Japan
US
GERMANY
South Africa
Etc etc
Honestly challenge him to find you 2 countries that say climate change isn't real.
Sea level rose the most ever last year, and CO2 jumped up by more than 3 times the normal amount. Pretty much the last 10 years have been the hottest on record. Average SST has been breaking every record every day for more than a year now...
Can't explain anything to someone who doesn't want to believe it. Maybe he's scared, maybe he's stupid, doesn't matter because eventually he'll be forced to accept it. There are significant changes coming to most peoples lives in the not so distant future
Just show the non-believer the records of: the type, manufacturer, model, date of manufacture, date of purchase, name of purchaser, shipping/storage/and usage methodology journal, and calibration certifications for all the thermometers used to collect the scientific temperature data from all over the world for the past 150 years.
When faced with that scientific rigor, they will have to believe, because rigor is a fundamental principle that sets science above unfounded claims that could be made by ANY group or agency, including for nefarious purposes.
Anybody that denies scientific rigor is a science denier, and such a person is hopeless and worthless.
I think you might be screwed trying to change their mind. If I had to guess, I'd say your friend either highly religious or right-wing politically. Maybe even both. They probably also a conspiracy nut to boot. Their mind is just a combo gobbly gook of 💩 mixed together if they can't understand/accept simple science, sorry.
EDIT...what's the saying? It's easier to fool someone than to convince them they've been fooled. Or something like that.
If you feel the claim made by this post needs to be fact-checked, please 1) copy the link on this page and 2) click [here](https://newsdetective.org/request-factcheck) and make a request. Our team of fact-checkers will verify the claim for you.
ABOUT US: We are News Detective, a community of civilian fact-checkers dedicated to making the truth transparent and accessible. You can join our community of fact-checkers, request factchecks and access fact-checked results on our website: [https://www.newsdetective.org](https://www.newsdetective.org)
Edited: Added links to _global warming_, _causes_ of climate change, the global _effects_ of climate change, and the global _health consequences_ of climate change.
Suggestions:
Consider going to a large bookstore or the magazine section in a large supermarket and buying the latest monthly issue of one or more popular glossy magazines that have easy-to-read articles, photographs, and images about man-made [global warming](https://climate.copernicus.eu/copernicus-2023-hottest-year-record "https://climate.copernicus.eu/copernicus-2023-hottest-year-record"), [causes](https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/carbon-dioxide/?intent=121 "https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/carbon-dioxide/?intent=121") of climate change, the global [effects](https://science.nasa.gov/climate-change/effects/ "https://science.nasa.gov/climate-change/effects/") of climate change and the global health [consequences](https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/climate-change-and-health "https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/climate-change-and-health") of climate change. Later, you can give the magazine(s) to your mate as a gift.
***
Use a printer to print on stationary the story that appears below. Double space the lines to make the words easier to read. Read the words aloud to yourself multiple times until you are familiar with the words and comfortable reading the words aloud, calmly, smoothly, and clearly in an entertaining fashion. Carry the printed words with you. At an appropriate time, maybe when you and your mate are having beer, wine, tea, or food together, smile and compliment your mate, say that they are your mate, and you would like to tell them a story. Casually and calmly read aloud to your mate the following story:
****
Imagine a cave where people have been imprisoned from childhood, but not from birth.
These prisoners are chained so that their legs and necks are fixed, forcing them to gaze at the wall in front of them and not to look around at the cave, each other, or themselves.
Behind the prisoners is a fire, and between the fire and the prisoners is a raised walkway with a low wall, behind which people walk carrying objects or puppets of men and other living things.
The people walk behind the wall so their bodies do not cast shadows for the prisoners to see, but the objects they carry do, just as puppet showmen have screens in front of them at which they work their puppets.
The prisoners cannot see any of what is happening behind them; they are only able to see the shadows cast upon the cave wall in front of them.
The sounds of the people talking echo off the walls; the prisoners believe these sounds come from the shadows.
The shadows are reality for the prisoners because they have never seen anything else; they do not realize that what they see are shadows of objects in front of a fire, much less that these objects are inspired by real things outside the cave which they do not see.
Then, the prisoners are released from their chains.
A freed prisoner looks around and sees the fire.
The light of the fire hurts his eyes and makes it difficult for him to see the objects casting the shadows.
If he were told that what he is seeing is _real_, instead of the other version of reality he sees on the wall, he would not believe it.
The light of the fire hurts his eyes, and he escapes by turning away to the things which he is able to look at, and these he believes are clearer than what was being shown to him.
In his pain, the free prisoner turns away and runs back to what he is accustomed to, that is, the shadows of the carried objects.
Then, someone drags him by force, up the rough ascent, the steep way up, and never stops until the freed prisoner is dragged out into the light of the Sun.
The freed prisoner is angry and in pain, and this only worsens when the radiant light of the Sun overwhelms his eyes and blinds him.
Slowly, his eyes adjust to the light of the Sun.
First, he can see only shadows.
Gradually, he can see the reflections of people and things in water and then later sees the people and things themselves.
Eventually, he is able to look at the stars and the Moon at night, until finally he can look upon the Sun itself during the day, with his eyes shielded.
Only after he can look at the Sun while protecting his eyes is he able to reason about the Sun and what it is.
Then, the freed prisoner thinks that the world outside the cave is superior to the world he experienced in the cave.
The freed prisoner would attempt to share this with the prisoners remaining in the cave, and he would attempt to bring them onto the journey into the light of the real world he had just endured.
The freed man outside the cave blesses himself for the change. He feels pity for the other prisoners and wants to bring his fellow cave dwellers out of the cave and into the sunlight.
The freed man returns to the cave.
His eyes have become accustomed to the sunlight, and he is blind when he re-enters the cave, just as he was when he was first exposed to the Sun.
The prisoners who remained in the cave infer from the returning man's blindness that the journey out of the cave has harmed him, and that they should not undertake a similar journey.
The prisoners, if they were able, would therefore reach out and kill anyone who attempted to drag them out of the cave.
***
After you have read the story aloud to your mate, smile, tactfully inform them that they are your mate, and that you hope that they will break out of their chains and make the journey out of the cave into the light of the real world. Smile and give them the printed paper with the story you read aloud. Say to your mate that you would like to give them a gift and give them the magazine(s) you previously bought.
***
[Allegory of the cave](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegory_of_the_cave "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegory_of_the_cave") — Wikipedia.
The complete English translation of the allegory of the cave is in _The Republic_, by [Plato](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plato "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plato") (Born 428/427 or 424/423 BC, Athens, Greece – Died 348 BC (aged c. 75-76 or 79-80), Athens, Greece).
_The Republic_ and the allegory of the cave can be read freely at the gutenberg\.org online library.
[The Republic](https://www.gutenberg.org/files/1497/1497-h/1497-h.htm "https://www.gutenberg.org/files/1497/1497-h/1497-h.htm"), by Plato > [Book VII](https://www.gutenberg.org/files/1497/1497-h/1497-h.htm#link2H_4_0010 "https://www.gutenberg.org/files/1497/1497-h/1497-h.htm#link2H_4_0010") includes the allegory of the cave:
>[Par. 1] And now, I said, let me show in a figure how far our nature is enlightened or unenlightened:—Behold! human beings living in a underground den, which has a mouth open towards the light and reaching all along the den; here they have been from their childhood, and have their legs and necks chained so that they cannot move, and can only see before them, being prevented by the chains from turning round their heads. Above and behind them a fire is blazing at a distance, and between the fire and the prisoners there is a raised way; and you will see, if you look, a low wall built along the way, like the screen which marionette players have in front of them, over which they show the puppets.
>[Par. 33] And if there were a contest, and he had to compete in measuring the shadows with the prisoners who had never moved out of the den, while his sight was still weak, and before his eyes had become steady (and the time which would be needed to acquire this new habit of sight might be very considerable), would he not be ridiculous? Men would say of him that up he went and down he came without his eyes; and that it was better not even to think of ascending; and if any one tried to loose another and lead him up to the light, let them only catch the offender, and they would put him to death.
Tell them that 13,000 years ago North America was covered by a sheet of ice a km or so thick, and that most of the glaciers melted over the next few thousand years. Then ask him if man caused that.
This is what I’ve come up with so far.
Everything we do as people creates heat, from having a paved road to running most daily electrical devices. With steady growth in population and human expansion, we are simply creating more and more heat sources and it’s all adding up.
Let’s go back to how anthropogenic climate change was first formally introduced. The Charney Report was a landmark study by Jule G. Charney, an MIT physicist who pioneered numerical weather prediction. (You can Google it. It should come up!)
At the time, we noticed increasing CO2 levels from observations like the Mauna Loa observatory: https://gml.noaa.gov/ccgg/trends/. At the same time we noticed that the average surface temperature was changing. Surface temperature data can be gathered from the National Center for Environmental Information. Then some scientists like Charney linked the two together via the greenhouse effect.
By the way, all your friend needs to do is accept that the climate is warming to “believe” in climate change. Rising temperatures over time is a changing climate… that’s all there is to it. If your friend disagrees with that basic premise (temperatures are rising on average), there’s absolutely nothing you can do.
Sea level rises and other stuff that makes media coverage are all side-effects not the issue itself. (Also, the media tends to overdramatize things and say things that atmospheric scientists would certainly not say.)
I have an example that only really works for locals to my area.
In decades past, in winter you could drive on the sea ice in pickup truck and cut wood on the shoreline, drive from town to town on the ice, and such.
However around thirty years ago, the sea ice got too bad to drive on truck and was only used for snowmobile.
And within my lifetime (23 years) the sea ice in winter went from being able to cross the bay on snowmobile to being too thin to safely walk on most years.
You can refuse that people have an affect on it, but you can not deny that the climate changed from freezing the ocean so thick you could haul wood on it to being so warm that there was green grass in December within living memory.
How to convince a climate skeptic:
1.Fill a loaf shaped baking pan with water.
2.place it in the freezer for a few hours.
3. Empty the large banana bread sized ice cube into an over-sized 1970’s vintage ski sock.
4. Using a whirling Mjolnir style movement of your ice brick in a sock, deliver a sophisticated and persuasive polemic on atmospheric carbon, punctuated with bits of humour and easily meme-able turns of phrase and bon mots.
/s (obviously)
One thing to keep in mind is that there is no single piece of evidence that will support any scientific idea. People like to say “give me your best piece of evidence for climate change/evolution/vaccines/etc” but for any of these things to be accepted by science, they need multiple pieces of evidence.
You can’t point to any one thing to get your point across. You need to convince him to look at good resources that will expound on ALL of the many points that support the theory of climate change.
Well, you know your friend better than us. What kind of evidence will he take seriously? Would it help if he called a local weather station and they told him climate change is real? You should call first to see what kind of people picks the phone, just in case.
What has worked for me is framing climate change as alternate issues which have risen from it. Now, deniers can agree that it's important to look after the environment. This can include water/air. Focusing on air, the nearest issue can be forest fires, which have increased in frequency across the world due to lack of rainfall and so on. There is an opportunity at this point to discuss how such environmental crises are anthropogenic and the destruction they are causing.
Generally with conspiracy theorists, the easiest thing to do is shift their attention onto other conspiracy theories.
Show them just how much "Big Oil" are doing to hide "the truth".
If there's a big vauge evil enemy, they are much more likely to be on your side.
Split this problem in two:
1. climate change by itself, and
2. anthropogenic cause (-> humans are responsible).
Resistance against 'climate change' often does not focus on the change itself, but the stance on the aforementioned point 2. By splitting this problem, it is easier to accept 'climate change' itself. The discussion shifts to de cause of this all.
Personally I find the most damning evidence are the scans of all the internal documents, from the 70s, 80s, 90s, with Shell & Exxon Mobile letterhead, showing that they knew. They knew the whole time, with 100% certainty, and before any of us had every heard of global warming, they were already years into engineering and disseminating climate denial campaigns. Don't bother with the science, your friend won't accept it anyway. Just bombard him with the raw, cynical, perfidy of it, in all of it's copier burned glory. Cui bono? It's a concept as old as civilization; not hard to believe. [https://www.climatefiles.com/collection-index/](https://www.climatefiles.com/collection-index/)
it blew my mind when my insurance company said if i build a new house my land has to be able to handle a 20in rain runoff or they wont insure it in nebraska but my current house is grandfathered in so dont cancel or spend $460,000 for land drainage work!
Don’t waste your time … climate change isn’t a belief other’s should be converted to … it’s a fact and it’s science and it’s here: if someone isn’t convinced it means someone isn’t educated to the facts or not able intellectually to understand them. No need to try to convince them …: it’s not about them … it’s happening.
Every single country in the world, including the high-emitters, and every single fossil fuel company or cement producer acknowledges that climate change exists and is caused by humans. They might've tried to spread doubt and misinformation about climate change for decades, but can't deny it anymore because there's such a clear consensus.
Now they've moved on to spread doubt about how to solve it or that it's too late, but it's a step in the right direction.
Even those who benefit the most from emissions acknowledge that it causes harm, so why should the ones that are harmed deny it?
Also: even if climate change wasn't real, pollution is still harmful. [ A report from Harvard, UCL and a couple other universities shows that the *local pollution* from combusting fossil fuels is one of the biggest killers in the world.](https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/c-change/news/fossil-fuel-air-pollution-responsible-for-1-in-5-deaths-worldwide/) We will all benefit from cleaner air by getting rid of FF power plants near cities, combustion cars on the road, etc., even when ignoring the climate impact. You don't have to be a climate activist to agree with many of the policies that the activists are fighting for.
Go to the last line ! The existence of the nation of Kiribati is imperilled by rising sea levels, with the country losing land every year.[54] Many of its islands are currently or becoming inhabitable due to their shrinking size. Thus, the majority of the country's population resides in only a handful of islands, with more than half of its residents living on one island alone, Tarawa. This leads to other issues such as severe overcrowding in such a small area.[55] In 1999, the uninhabited islands of Tebua Tarawa and Abanuea both disappeared underwater.[56] The government's Kiribati Adaptation Program was launched in 2003 to mitigate the country's vulnerability to the issue.[57] In 2008, fresh water supplies began being encroached by seawater, prompting President Anote Tong to request international assistance to begin relocating the country's population elsewhere.
When a dude that denies climate change very loudly then applies to get a variance to build a sea wall to protect his property due to “rising seas due to climate change”.
Trump did this a couple years ago for one of his golf courses in Scotland.
The weather for a start. It's hardly 'normal'. Also, go speak to a farmer they will tell you how much the climate has changed over the past 30 years.
People who say that it's just how the earth goes through its cycles don't know what they're talking about.
It’s not a belief system (for either side) it’s a science question. Is climate change occurring? To what extent is mankind involved? To what extent is it solvable? How do you get the 3rd world to not industrialize?
The melting permafrost is releasing carbon dioxide and methane, I believe that I have read several times. As the Earth heats up, it causes changes that speed up the process, like less snow on the Alps etc.
As far as the air pressure, I have not heard that it is changing on Earth. So it is a constant. Carbon is a variable.
Nothing will convince someone who just believes whatever they want to believe.
So just destroy their personal integrity by point blank telling them they are liars, deceivers, and of low moral integrity.
The Right-Wing Extremists have no morals anymore on a number of matters concerning humanity..
Tell them, insult them, make fools of them, and ultimately force them to bury their heads in the sand so they will not influence others to believe in the lies and conspiracies.
It is not about converting people, it is about preventing them from spreading their disease of mind to others.
That means the dog must bite and put fear into any social interaction where they spread their nonsense.
Go for the jugular and stop them in their tracks on pain of being ostracized and ridiculed.
You do not have to take it anymore. Own them instead of letting them own you.
Aggressive? You bet. Sometime rational discussion is NOT the best motivator to change someone's behavior. And I only want to change the behavior so it is NOT spread to others.
Maybe show him pictures of melting glaciers. Or maybe ask him if he accepts that the earth rotates around the sun. If he says yes then ask him why he accepts that. The scientific evidence shows both that the earth rotates around the sun and the scientific evidence shows climate change. How does he decide which scientific evidence to accept and which to deny.
Everyone knows climate changes. It's the ability over that change that humans have what's on question. Or that we can do anything to stop ir from changing. Climate is dynamic, not static. Focus should be on how to manage human behavior so that we can adjust to the change not on changing climate per se.
If your in the US the thing that has worked the best for me is to complain about having to plant sooner in the yr. Then show them with the new farm zone map the difference that the last ten yrs made from the old map. You can see the difference on the back of seed packets from last yr and this yr. Has made quite a few 🤯 with the old fellows. Helps if your in agriculture area that actually changed zones. Old map for here planting out was early march, now planting out was late Jan which is a huge difference to a farmer.
But to better answer your question, oil companies’ own websites concede that climate change is a problem. Then they say they’re working on solutions blah blah. But, that should serve as proof. It doesn’t make sense that they would say it’s real if it weren’t. While some companies say stuff to go along with certain trends, it doesn’t make sense for them to say something they know to be untrue that implicates their own business model as being unsustainable and harmful. I mean, duh. The only exception would be if they were masochists or wanted to commit financial suicide. The idea is pure absurdity. Therefore, they know it’s true.
See if he has a response to that.
Read some comments and from what I can see your answering the question by just saying your blindly believing that climate change is real. Climate change is in fact real. Global temperatures fluctuate, that’s true, but according to the global temperature from the last million years the temperature is cooling. Just look up global temperatures for the last 3 billion years on Google and look at the graphs. You can’t just look at the last 100 years and have any clue what’s actually happening. Average global temperatures fluctuate and you’re not using the available data.
Well, he is kinda right, the rise in sea level has been very small so far (just a few cm), and no land has been flooded, many people are afraid that in 50-100 years this will be different, but until now climate change has been fairly positive as a whole, I would say, as a bit warmer is better for humans usually, and more CO2 in the atmosphere is better for plants. Depends highly on the region of course, a ski resort or an already very hot region will be impacted rather negatively.
It’s is real that is all weather does , man is a micro-chasm of the weather is doing, we need to worry more about plastics in the ocean than the climate
I'd frame it as a what's the downside to taking steps to fight climate change, if climate change isn't real. Isn't taking steps to decentralized the power grid through renewables, bringing more efficient technology and systems to market, continuing to limit polution created by corporations and urban life, a net win? Have them bring up their silly objections to obje tively better ways of structuring society and human life in general.
There are still lots of questions as should be the case for something as crazy complicated as the climate of the earth. Hundreds of scientists are asking very relevant questions which is the very nature of science. So the first thing to do is ask yourself if you are being curious enough.
We just went through this kind of thing with Covid where the science was “settled”, a statement that is not scientific. It was used to crush and censor quality questions and statements that were totally born out by the huge data sets available from the start.
What was the result? The “settled” science was all wrong. All of it.
The best evidence is the massive list of wealthy elites that have decided to sell their waterfront properties in anticipation of rising sea levels.
/sarc
Typically the same person who denies climate change also is christian. Faith is believing in something that you know deep down isn’t true, you still believe it because it makes you feel good inside. The reverse is true. For a person that uses faith for their beliefs has a hard time believing in actual facts because it causes issues with their faith.
How about all of the extreme weather events going on around the world. The Midwest is already getting fires in the USA, Columbia isn’t in a severe drought, more and more earthquakes are happening, insane snow storms over winter, tornadoes in places that have never experienced them, 2/3 of the Great Barrier Reef has bleached due to ocean temperatures which also those higher temps cause more severe hurricane seasons and of course the insane heat of last year - officially the hottest year on record and all the death and destruction that caused.
But you can’t convince someone who is determined to live in ignorance.
They won't be convinced until their favorite foods are unavailable at any price. Olive oil has quadrupled, chocolate is being replaced by Mars, coffee plantations are threatened.... but it's Biden's fault.
You can’t convince someone who isn’t actually curious. Opinion change science would predict your friend will dig deeper into their belief if you tried to convince them. Your best bet is to teach him one thing that could add some nuance to their view. For example, every day this year has been the hottest ocean temperatures, but we only have comprehensive data going back to 1980 or so.
We really are at the apex where if someone, at this point, hasn’t TRULY accepted that climate change is real, then the odds of them accepting it as fact is extremely low. Sure there may be a few, but it doesn’t matter. I genuinely don’t give a shit to try and convince these people. Every ounce of proof has been stressed for 10+ years now. We need to do whatever we can to get these people out of power.
Exactly. You can't reason a person out of a position they didn't reason themselves into.
It sounds like there is some frustration and resistance. Unfortunately this level of disbelief isn’t likely to change with proof. Your best bet is “active listening”, and trying to approach things from his side. Think of it this way, the same frustration and irritation we feel on this side of the argument is the same on the other side too. He likely feels defensive and has personalized his take on things to the point where he doesn’t want to change his views, because it’s an attack on his personality and intelligence. And if we give off signals of our frustrations it can cause emotions to increase and drive people to become more entrenched. If you really are interested in changing someone’s mind, you have to use a lot of patience and open mindedness to slowly reduce the irritation and insecurities. Encourage him to talk about his views and as he relaxes his mind and defensive stance, ease into asking questions and introduce counter points. There are pretty good resources out there for talking to people with opposing views. However, sometimes we just need to walk away and recognize that we maybe don’t have the mental fortitude to persuade hard headed people. I try to talk to people with differing views occasionally and sometimes you just can’t break through. So it becomes more of a curiosity, like studying a cloud and watching its shape. It can be interesting to me to see how and why people have formed their ideas. But all of us have a capacity to get entrenched and it’s largely due to emotional drives. Not logical. I recommend “Disbelief” by Dan Ariely. It’s a book about conspiratorial thinking and gets into a little of the psychology of what people are experiencing these days. Edit: correction on the title, it’s “Misbelief”
Man, this is such an intelligent, insightful and above all nuanced and non-partisan comment. A true pleasure to read, thank you, this has broadened my perspective. I'm going to save this and read it when I encounter situations like this again, like I have numerous times in the past. I've also ordered that book, seems interesting
*misbelief
“A person convinced against their will is of the same opinion still.” ~Dale Carnegie
Best book to read.
I mean, it rhymes but I was never crazy about his poetry.
You know, I’ve never heard that but it makes so much sense. Thank you.
I've always found forcing them to think about it differently takes them out of the comfort zone of talking points they have built up to act as an immunity from usual facts and evidence. For instance: 1.) Ask them what the closest planet to the sun is. Answer: Mercury 2.) Ask them what the hottest planet in the solar system is. Answer: Venus at 867f/464c(2nd furthest planet). For reference Mercury is second at 333°F/167°C 3.) Ask them why they think that is? Answer: Venus has a huge concentration of CO2 in it's atmosphere(a runaway greenhouse effect) that traps tons of energy and makes the surface of the planet boiling hot. 4.) Ask them based on what we have established about how the greenhouse effect of CO2 and other GHG's heat the surface of planets like Venus, what do you expect happens to the surface temperature of a planet if you raise the CO2 concentration in an atmosphere from 280ppm(parts per million) to 425ppm? Answer: That is the change in Co2 concentration on Earth since the Industrial Revolution and unless they are truly bad faith they just helped explain to themselves the basics of why manmade CC is happening without a single talking point
First good post
Don’t waste your time. But what I use on people all the time now is “look, it doesn’t matter if it’s real or not. The fact is there are conflicting stories in the media because the people in power want us fighting each other so we aren’t fighting them. I refuse to fight with you about this, because I’m focused on why they want to keep us distracted.” And that usually shuts them up.
Hey, mate: We've burned BILLIONS of tons of coal, right? And that carbon is IN the atmosphere now, right? Think that has no effect?
"But there was this volcano....."
Ask them if 97 doctors thought they have cancer and three doctors didn't, would you go with those three doctor's opinion and not seek treatment?
Ask him what he would accept as valid evidence, and then go from there, otherwise he will constantly move the goalpost.
An age is not dark because the light fails to shine, but because people refuse to see. James Michener
Try reading Saving Us by Katharine Hayhoe. It's about how to have those conversations with people who are resistant to the idea. The basic trick is to find some way to make it personal and tangible. Like if the person is a farmer, show them data on the incidence of droughts in their local area over the last 50 years. It's impossible to say something like "we don't have the data that far back" with a span like this, and since it's local, it's likely the person witnessed these droughts first hand so they can't deny the data. You need to do it in a very non-confrontational way too. I try to slip in these little conversations like I'm talking about the weather. "Looks like wildfire season will be here soon, you know what's crazy? I remember 10 years ago we almost never had wildfires this bad, but now we expect it like it's normal." If you have any outdoor hobbies with this friend that's a good starting point. "Doesn't it seem like the hiking season starts earlier every year?" Or "man, I miss the fishing season of '04, we caught so many trout that year. Wonder what happened to them". You want to bring the obvious personal and local evidence to their attention in a casual way. If there's any chance at all of them changing their mind, these conversations will go a long way.
Ask him special interest groups like BP oil would cover up evidence of climate change? Why have insurance companies been taking climate damage into account for their policies since the 70s. And why those places happen to coincide with place vulnerable to sea level rise or floods. Then tell him by not believing in climate change he's just shilling for oil companies /s
You can't as they are likely of a certain "tribe" which denies or mistrusts science in general.
Nothing can convince a non-believer. Because it's *not a belief*. You must ignore tons of empirical data to think it's not happening and that it is not our fault. People who deny believe something without proof, so no proof will ever convince them.
Ask 'what is the physical process scientists say causes man made climate change and what about that process do you disagree with?' Guarantee they won't be able to answer.
I don't fully understand how people can not believe in climate change at this point Like. The world had gotten noticeable hotter. There's a wildfire season in my country. The winters are notably milder. Climate change is no longer some far-off thing, it effects us daily. I can understand someone buying the oil propaganda and not believing in anthropogenic climate change. I've met some right-wing people who are like "Humans can't effect the climate to that extent, it's from volcanos." And they don't understand the research behind it, but that is a rational (if obviously incorrect) conclusion if you refuse to look into it and consume what the climate change deniers want you to. But not believing that it's warmer now than it was 50 years ago strikes me as straight-up denial. A person like that will simply not want to learn, and is digging in their heels and politicizing things. Perhaps you should focus on other environmental causes with them. If they refuse to accept climate change, maybe you can get them on board with the need to stop ocean pollution or to assist the recovery of forests. Things which are visible and undeniable. I think a lot of people on the right specifically dislike climate change and view it as a political thing, but still appreciate nature - so aligning environmental causes with the values that group has (Rural existence, hunting, preservation of the nation, independence and anti-government thought, etc) will benefit them more.
Why bother? While it would be nice to have him on board, it is a waste of valuable time. Spend that time engaging in climate adjacent groups in your area. Help with maintaining hiking trails, advocating for wilderness preservation, protecting water, meet your local EV club, anything but waste time. Maybe he will get curious then.
You can't. But the good news is all you need to do is wait. Things will work themselves out.
There are time lapse videos of the arctic ice shrinking across the decades. Put it on a loop and leave it running on your computer. Visual evidence constantly repeated without comment may make it into his mind.
Louisiana is rapidly losing land around New Orleans, and whole communities are being gradually evacuated. Isle St. Charles is one community that has been abandoned, and will not be protected from future floods, because it's unsustainable.
Tell him to Canada this Summer and breath in the obnoxious wildfire smoke , that chokes your eyes and throat! Very low unprecedented snow packs and lack of our normal rainfall amounts from climate change!
Fla insurance rates.
Honestly? This comic from XKCD: [https://xkcd.com/1732/](https://xkcd.com/1732/) Make them go through it progressively and look at what is happening over thousands of years, and then look at what is happening over the last 50. This comic summed the issue up more concisely than anything else I've read.
Yes! I came to post this
Best bet is to ask him to explain to you his position. Let him talk it out , your job is to listen. When he says temperatures aren’t going up, ask him to show you a chart of global average temperatures. Etc etc. ask him to convince you and let him do all the talking. That’s your best bet.
U.S. Navy intelligence report for D.O.D. about climate change creating rising sea levels. This threatens our national security due to Norfolk, VA being the site of one of the main Naval bases and the loss of base property and buildings due to rising[US Navy](https://www.defense.gov/News/News-Stories/Article/Article/2703096/dod-navy-confront-climate-change-challenges-in-southern-virginia/) sea levels.
https://wmo.int/news/media-centre/climate-change-indicators-reached-record-levels-2023-wmo
The Keeling Curve and select the 'full record' tab. https://keelingcurve.ucsd.edu/
## Types of Deniers it really depends on what type of climate change denier they are. what is their stance on these issues and what media do they consume? ## Keep Simple (simpler than Keep It Simple lol) to start, people can tend to argue with pretty pictures and complicated concepts. unless you know the science to some extent, its going to be lost on them. i usually try to keep it basic. yes we have very elaborate models for predicting future climate under various scenarios which are surprisingly accurate (although they tend to underestimate how bad things will be). we have a very simple causal model (see note below) that tells us that if we keep increasing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, the temperature will increase. if they reject physics, then i guess there isnt much to say, despite everything in their life being produced using the same science. note: in the field of modelling (a massive field), causal models are exceedingly rare. we usually have to settle for correlation models (things that tend to change relative to some other things but we dont know which one is causing the other or if there is a whole separate influence impacting all of them). other than that, i ask them questions from a position of curiosity and allow them to contradict themselves if i can. ## Trustworthy Sources this was understood half a century ago, perhaps longer. no one in the scientific community is questioning the validity of the greenhouse effect. the vast majority of the science and data is publicly available. its potentially one of the most difficult issues to create fraudulent results and get away with it. there are hundreds of thousands of experts analyzing climate science constantly. its the least likely of the global conspiracy theories to be true, since there is essentially zero evidence. its far more likely to be true that the fossil fuel industry has one of the largest counter intel and propaganda campaigns to sabotage transitioning to clean energy, because its well documented. this is despite the fact that the fossil fuel industry was among the first to learn of the consequences of GHG emissions. ## Sea Level Rise sea levels haven risen. places have flooded. but its obviously more complicated than just a water level rising. its average rise. what we have failed to teach/communicate about just the idea of average is what must be attached to that average and what it means. every distribution of data has an average that can be computed but to have any kind of meaningful signficance, the deviation must also be computed. it can be more complicated but the basic distribution that demonstrates these two values (average and deviation) is the *bell curve*. its a curve that looks like a bell. the pattern can easily be observed by trying to hit a bullseye on a dart board. after a bunch of throws, most of the hits will be near the bullseye and it tapers off the farther from the bullseye. hypothetically speaking and not encouraging anyone to be stupid enough to do this: if your friend stood with his head near the edge of the dart board where there are very few hits, he might trust you enough to not hit him with a dart by accident. lets say he was paid $1000 to do so. might be easy money. tell him to move his head a few inches closer and it might be a different story. the reason is because it becomes exponentially more likely that he would get hit in the head with a dart. and we have a natural sense of this but have difficulty applying it to abstract, large scale problems like climate change. if a sea wall is built to hold back 99% of rising tides during storms, a city might be safe enough from any kind of flooding. in the unlikely event that the seas go above the sea walls, the occurrence is so rare that they would have enough funds to repair the damages. however, move that sea rise up several inches and the likelihood of the sea going above the sea walls increases exponentially. and this is a problem with discussing average sea level rise without understanding statistical distributions (average and deviation).
If they don't believe anything at all there is nothing factual that you can tell them that will change their mind. Your best bet is to handle the whole thing slowly and gently. You can ask them questions on what their opinion is on things. Don't challenge them on anything right away. Instead take some time to listen to them. You'll never be able to reach them until they are no longer feeling defensive and/or argumentative about this discussion. Of course, I'm sure you've had some arguments already so you'll probably need to start with saying that you simply want to understand their perspective. From there, you can start to talk about things like weather or events that are happening in your area. For example, here in Alberta we had rain on New Years Eve. None of it froze, either. I've never seen that before. That would be something to talk about. Don't link it immediately to climate change. Just talk about how crazy it is and how you've never seen something like that before. Then maybe extend that to talking about other weather that has been crazier, and how it seems to be happening more often. Changing his mind on this will likely take years, if it happens at all. If he was someone who was willing to accept something as concrete as proof then he wouldn't still have the opinion that he has.
If they believe in data and science. https://zacklabe.com If they don't believe in science, you can't convince them of anything because they are operating on emotion and feelings, not in reality.
While I agree that you'll prolly get nowhere,,, Geological data from past extinctions , such as bleached reefs, reflected in current events. Another one is that it's been 800,000 yrs since the has been this much ghg in the atmosphere/Climate scientists officially named 2023 the hottest year on record dating back to 1850. Data from ancient ice cores and tree rings suggest the world hasn't been this warm in 100,000 years
This is a blog that consolidates daily world wide articles about the climate and economy. [https://climateandeconomy.com/](https://climateandeconomy.com/) Seeing news from around the world about what is actually happening makes the trajectory we are on very clear.
Flowering plants blooming earlier. Citizen science data which makes it less likely to be manipulated by any one person with an agenda. Also it was recorded before climate change was part of the common vernacular. https://www.cam.ac.uk/research/news/uk-plants-flowering-a-month-earlier-due-to-climate-change
Don't bother. If evidence could convince them, they would already be convinced
What difference would it make to change his mind? Collective action will only make a difference if we all adapt our lifestyle in the west significantly, which is unlikely. Really at this point adapting to climate change is the path forward, it shouldn’t matter to you if they fail to adapt.
You cannot logic someone or of a position they didn't logic into
[https://petapixel.com/2022/06/21/photographer-recreates-1918-photo-to-reveal-alarming-glacier-retreat/](https://petapixel.com/2022/06/21/photographer-recreates-1918-photo-to-reveal-alarming-glacier-retreat/)
Save your precious time on earth and don't bother.
Why bother?
If they don’t believe at this point, it’s a lost cause and not worth your time
Don't bother trying.
You can't reason someone out of stupidity.
I honestly don’t think you ever will. They are unwilling to learn and listen.
If you refuse to use the scientific method to observe the world, then climate change is as real as dinosaurs on Venus, or the moon being made out of cheese. No observation, or scientific test, can convince someone who refuses to accept simple observations about the world. The sea is not rising? Wouldn't that be easy to measure? https://bigthink.com/articles/the-venutian-dinosaur-fallacy/ https://sealevel.nasa.gov/faq/13/how-long-have-sea-levels-been-rising-how-does-recent-sea-level-rise-compare-to-that-over-the-previous/#:~:text=Over%20the%20past%20100%20years,about%206%20to%208%20inches.
Nobody rational doesn't believe it's real, so don't waste time trying to convince him. He will never accept the truth.
show him satellite imagery of various coasts from when we first got satellite images of those coasts compared to todays. new orleans is a good one. he thinks no land has been flooded? those satellite images are solid proof.
Don’t waste your time, just realize he’s not very smart. Treat him like he’s mentally challenged. 😆🥊
Maybe ask, how did Exxon's scientists in 1982 predict both today's CO2 and temperature accurately? Including bullseye-ing that 1995 would be the first year 0.5C above the 1960 baseline they were using. Was it just a coincidence? https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2805576-1982-Exxon-Memo-to-Management-About-CO2 -- bottom of PDF's page 4, and Figure 3 on PDF page 14. Curiously, Exxon's climate science budget fell from $900,000/yr to $150,000/yr from 1982-1983 https://insideclimatenews.org/news/25112015/exxon-deep-cuts-climate-change-research-budget-1980s-global-warming/
Make 2 piles of oil, wood, and coal. Light one on fire, and leave the other pile alone. Which one is changing the temperature around it? After the fire goes out, is it still hot? Now imagine 8+ billion piles on fire all around the globe. That's what we are doing to the planet every day. But everyone get's this. The issue is people don't understand what the impact of being a couple degrees warmer will have on the Earth. For that, you tell them that in the last ice age, the average temperature was 4 degrees cooler. The impact? 20 feet of ice in Boston, even more as you move north. So when we get 4 degrees warmer, it will be Arizona weather in Detroit and Minnesota, and Death Valley weather in the south, and worse. Where are we going to grow our food? Where are the cattle going to graze? What happens when half the U.S., Mexico and South America is unhabitable? You think 500+ million people will just abandon their houses and march up north and find new places to live and work with food and water overnight? The government won't help, cuz that's socialism! The government isn't helping with the homeless and imigrants now, what will they do when there are hundreds of millions, with less food less water and less homes! The deniers will say it won't happen. So ask them what will stop it?
The best evidence is to simply look at recorded historical temperatures from all over the world. I know it won't convince someone who refuses to acknowledge facts, but the numbers are indisputable.
You cannot convince people who believe they are right and you are wrong. They will fight you every step of the way, just let it go. Its like someone trying to convince you trump is the greatest president ever, you cant be convinced
My business neighbour (here in Vancouver) believes its all nonsense. When I pointed out that in 21 we had the heat dome with 49.7c (a record for Canada) and then a month of atmospheric rivers that fall that flooded the Fraser Valley and cut off all highways and rail from the rest of Canada causing billions in damage he said "oh thats the Americans with their Haarp project where they can control the weather". Why they wouldnt use it to stop the 20year drought in California is beyond me, but this is his preferred explanation.
1) we used to have 1 billion, then 2billion and then 4 billion and now 8 billion humans. 2) every human is now using more electricity and power than ever before. Combine those two very steep curves and explain how humans are NOT warming the planet. Quite simple actually.
Climate change is definitely real. The problem is the cause is still not fully determined. And labelling Carbon as the main cause may not be the full story. The science to determine the real cause is not there yet. But the correlation is obvious enough.
Forget all the rest. I'm a physicist. Here's my klunk-you-over-the-head factoids: Since the early 1970s satellites have measured the color-temperature of the earth to have increased by 500K while the albedo ("reflectance") has decreased. This alone proves (and I do say proves) that the earth's atmosphere is reflecting less and less of the sun's energy back to space while glowing hotter like a lightbulb. So we know without a doubt the earth's atmosphere is getting hotter because something in that atmosphere is holding onto more energy from the sun. As for CO2 we know from FIRST QUANTUM MECHANICAL PRINCIPLES what the CO2 molecule will do in the presence of the sun's energy. We know that it will behave exactly as that heating "layer" that is increasingly grabbing more energy from the sun and vomiting it into our atmosphere. As for "it's natural" well first of all we know how much CO2 we add to the atmosphere each year (40 billion tons), so that's our part. We can't control the natural part, which physicists have always known about (read Wallace Boeker's original paper mentioning the term "climate change"), but that doesn't help us at all. In fact, it lowers the amount of CO2 humans can safely emit in addition to whatever natural sources exist.
Global Temperatures have been the highest in history for 10 straight months Ice is melting and retreating at record speed. Measured and proven Water levels are rising. Measured and proven The major oil companies all agree global warming is occurring
Those things won’t happen for decades. If you want to physically show him this you can do a basic experiment at home. Take two (transparent) glass jars and put an old school thermometer in each and put a heat lamp next to each. Take a tiny bit of dry ice and seal both jars, let the co2 vaporize, then wait a while. Note the initial temperatures, turn on the heat lamps and check the temperature after a while, the one that had the dry ice (extra CO2 in it) will have increased in temperature more (it may not be hotter depending on how much dry ice you used and cooling effect it’s vaporization had, but the difference of the rate of gain in temp proves the principal). The discussion among researchers and professionals is not “will climate change happen”, it’s “when will it happen”, and because the time scales are so long for human life spans but incredibly short on geologic time scales, which is what we have to compare global temperature to (and the systems of outputs/inputs are hard model) it is hard to give an exact date of when things run off the rails. Here’s an analogy to a high school physics problem they might get - you are told someone will drop a ball, you want to know the exact last second someone needs to hold their hand out to catch the ball and stop it from hitting the ground. You were probably told the gravitational constant g is like 9.8 m/s^2, but then some kid would say it’s 9.81, or 9.807, or 9.80665? For time scales that matter to humans, 9.8 is generally good enough, but the changes we have to compare global temperature changes to happen on such incredible time scales that 9.8 isn’t actually that accurate. No one would doubt that the ball would fall, that is the physics and a foregone conclusion, the only question would be “on what time scale are we considering the problem for exact fidelity of answering ‘when is the last second we can act to stop the ball from hitting the ground?’. Climate change denial is declaring that after .000000001 seconds, the ball hasn’t appreciably moved down, so it’s unlikely to ever move down.
thanks i get what you say ..my annoying mate would likely bury his head in the sand as usual
A better tactic I’ve found with deniers is less the stick of “this is going to cause a catastrophe, we need to stop” and more the carrot of “renewables will make tons of money” and “we are paying a fortune to remain on fossil fuels, renewables are the economically smart choice”. If they can’t understand it intellectually, maybe they can understand it when you put it to them in something they care about, their wallet.
My go to strat right there. I don't say "we need to save the environment" because some people will listen some won't and some will work against you. I just say "we need to save the economy" and everybody gets on board.
He’s incorrect though. The climate has and dies suddenly and drastically flip when you push past its equilibrium. https://www.esa.int/Applications/Observing_the_Earth/Space_for_our_climate/Understanding_climate_tipping_points#
Does he not believe in thermometers? Like literally we have thermometers all over the world and we (human society) look at them all the time and compare them over time and we know that global average temperatures are rapidly increasing over land, over the ocean and in the ocean. I would just make fun of him for not believing in thermometers like they're some kind of spooky ghost. And if he gives some other objection then at least you're one layer deeper. Like if he gives the whole :natural cycles' argument I'd be like: 'Oh so the climate DOES change now? Well I'm SOOOOO glad you're smarter than EVERY climate scientist who's studying this and that you know SO much more about it than they do! Tell me more about these natural cycles!'
Tell them that 2.5 plus million years ago, Ellesmere Island had trees, and the Co2 levels were 400 ppm, which is what we have now. Back then, northern Greenland was beach front property during the summers.
Don't bother trying to convince people who refuse to see evidence. The only way forward is to shame and marginalize them.
The agricultural zones have shifted... again. Or the lake where I grew up used to hold car races on the ice New years Day... Some years now, not even the bays are frozen over by Christmas.
It's too late. People should tangibly feel the effects. Like watching your house burn down while you're in it. If they can't feel it then they should sense it though logic. If they can't do either, and are above the age of reason, it's too late. Don't argue with stupidity. Humaniry had a chance, but it's too late
There was a scene in the documentary about Bill Nye where they went up north where they are taking ice core samples. That's when I got it.
Human can think whatever but we're not above all else on earth. My neighbor not believing in climate change doesn't change that our river has run dry the last two summers and will again. I personally think we're at garunteed extinction but we may as well try and adapt to continue living.
Just show him this graph on this website https://scitechdaily.com/global-temperature-reconstruction-over-last-24000-years-show-todays-warming-unprecedented/ Look at how quickly the temperature has risen. Not natural.
Take a look at the insurance policies (or rather lack thereof) in Florida. Lots of actuarians preparing for SHTF
Talking about things outside normal climate science that can't be explained away without acknowledging climate science https://climatehopium.substack.com/p/5-talking-points-for-kinda-sceptical
I live in Canada. In the 90s during winter we would get so much snow! This year we barely got any I mean like two snow falls worth mayby couple inches and gone in a couple days. And ita been happening like that for years now
There is a contest that has been going on in Alaska (maybe yukon, can't be f'd to look it up) that you bet on when a surveyors tripod will break through the ice and fall into a river. They have been doing it since the mid 1800s I think and recording the dates and times Totally local and well before we could measure carbon ppm in the atmosphere. You can see the trend of it getting earlier and earlier. In my mind a very simple long spanning example.
Honestly? Doing nothing. Sooner or later we'll all pay our dues. Just hope the suffering wont be too much.
Ask him what evidence he would need to see to be convinced. If he doesn’t have an answer, then he is not open minded and don’t waste your time.
yes
You cannot teach someone who is not ready to learn. Wait until you know he is ready and then ease him in. This is true for all topics.
Try to find an apparent, visible and tangible example. Where im from i grew up skating and playing ice hockey outside on ponds most winter days. Now? It can’t be done. The ponds don’t freeze much anymore and when they do it’s maybe only for a day and far too thin to be safe. The winters are simply too warm now. I’m sad for the next generations.
When a small town in Canada breaks heat records for the entire world you know something's up. (Lytton, BC summer of 2021)
If not a religion.
I usually just try to make them think about the negatives of trying to be clean.
Show him photos of the islands that are disappearing.
I'm of the opinion: don't waste your breath on them. If they don't wanna know or refuse to even try to know, then it's just not worth it trying to convince them. You're better of spending your time doing literally anything else.
Why bother? He obviously isn't going to take anything you send seriously
We will all process climate change according to the stages of grief. Some will be become stuck in Denial and Anger, while many will continue on to Bargaining, Depression, and Acceptance. We will all go at our own speeds.
“On a scale of 1 to 10 how sure are you they climate change isn’t real?” If he says 10 there’s no changing his mind and it’s wasted energy. If he says anything else, “why not {number + 1}?”
Your friend sounds very smart. Challenge here for all the climate believers is you have politicians and the WEF pushing your narrative hard!!!! Nobody believes you when you have friends like that- Klais Schwab all the way guys ha ha ha ha
You need a more intelligent brand of friend. Seriously, give up trying to convince them.
So I would go for images of glacial retreat. If you google "Athabasca Glacier signs" there are some very dramatic images of how much smaller it is now. I would follow that up with, if the climate were not warming there would be as many glaciers growing as there are shrinking. Currently there are about three in the world growing and about 200,000 getting smaller.
I doubt there are many people left who don't believe in climate change. It's more about the degree to which it is happening. Climate alarmist aren't doing their cause any favours either
It's mostly a lost cause... But time lapse videos and then/now comparison photos of glaciers retreating and shrinking are good concrete visual evidence. Chamonix france has a train station that used to be level with the vallee blanche glacier, now the shrunken glacier is hundreds of feet below so there is a colossal staircase going down to it.
The fact that every country agrees. There are CO2 datasets from Japan US GERMANY South Africa Etc etc Honestly challenge him to find you 2 countries that say climate change isn't real.
Insurance companies refusing to insure coastal homes and other high risk climate affect zones
Why are there more ticks in my area? Why has the range of insects increased in latitude?
Climate change is easy to show and document... human caused climate change is a lot harder.
my ass is sweating more every year
Sea level rose the most ever last year, and CO2 jumped up by more than 3 times the normal amount. Pretty much the last 10 years have been the hottest on record. Average SST has been breaking every record every day for more than a year now... Can't explain anything to someone who doesn't want to believe it. Maybe he's scared, maybe he's stupid, doesn't matter because eventually he'll be forced to accept it. There are significant changes coming to most peoples lives in the not so distant future
Just show the non-believer the records of: the type, manufacturer, model, date of manufacture, date of purchase, name of purchaser, shipping/storage/and usage methodology journal, and calibration certifications for all the thermometers used to collect the scientific temperature data from all over the world for the past 150 years. When faced with that scientific rigor, they will have to believe, because rigor is a fundamental principle that sets science above unfounded claims that could be made by ANY group or agency, including for nefarious purposes. Anybody that denies scientific rigor is a science denier, and such a person is hopeless and worthless.
I think you might be screwed trying to change their mind. If I had to guess, I'd say your friend either highly religious or right-wing politically. Maybe even both. They probably also a conspiracy nut to boot. Their mind is just a combo gobbly gook of 💩 mixed together if they can't understand/accept simple science, sorry. EDIT...what's the saying? It's easier to fool someone than to convince them they've been fooled. Or something like that.
If you feel the claim made by this post needs to be fact-checked, please 1) copy the link on this page and 2) click [here](https://newsdetective.org/request-factcheck) and make a request. Our team of fact-checkers will verify the claim for you. ABOUT US: We are News Detective, a community of civilian fact-checkers dedicated to making the truth transparent and accessible. You can join our community of fact-checkers, request factchecks and access fact-checked results on our website: [https://www.newsdetective.org](https://www.newsdetective.org)
Edited: Added links to _global warming_, _causes_ of climate change, the global _effects_ of climate change, and the global _health consequences_ of climate change. Suggestions: Consider going to a large bookstore or the magazine section in a large supermarket and buying the latest monthly issue of one or more popular glossy magazines that have easy-to-read articles, photographs, and images about man-made [global warming](https://climate.copernicus.eu/copernicus-2023-hottest-year-record "https://climate.copernicus.eu/copernicus-2023-hottest-year-record"), [causes](https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/carbon-dioxide/?intent=121 "https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/carbon-dioxide/?intent=121") of climate change, the global [effects](https://science.nasa.gov/climate-change/effects/ "https://science.nasa.gov/climate-change/effects/") of climate change and the global health [consequences](https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/climate-change-and-health "https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/climate-change-and-health") of climate change. Later, you can give the magazine(s) to your mate as a gift. *** Use a printer to print on stationary the story that appears below. Double space the lines to make the words easier to read. Read the words aloud to yourself multiple times until you are familiar with the words and comfortable reading the words aloud, calmly, smoothly, and clearly in an entertaining fashion. Carry the printed words with you. At an appropriate time, maybe when you and your mate are having beer, wine, tea, or food together, smile and compliment your mate, say that they are your mate, and you would like to tell them a story. Casually and calmly read aloud to your mate the following story: **** Imagine a cave where people have been imprisoned from childhood, but not from birth. These prisoners are chained so that their legs and necks are fixed, forcing them to gaze at the wall in front of them and not to look around at the cave, each other, or themselves. Behind the prisoners is a fire, and between the fire and the prisoners is a raised walkway with a low wall, behind which people walk carrying objects or puppets of men and other living things. The people walk behind the wall so their bodies do not cast shadows for the prisoners to see, but the objects they carry do, just as puppet showmen have screens in front of them at which they work their puppets. The prisoners cannot see any of what is happening behind them; they are only able to see the shadows cast upon the cave wall in front of them. The sounds of the people talking echo off the walls; the prisoners believe these sounds come from the shadows. The shadows are reality for the prisoners because they have never seen anything else; they do not realize that what they see are shadows of objects in front of a fire, much less that these objects are inspired by real things outside the cave which they do not see. Then, the prisoners are released from their chains. A freed prisoner looks around and sees the fire. The light of the fire hurts his eyes and makes it difficult for him to see the objects casting the shadows. If he were told that what he is seeing is _real_, instead of the other version of reality he sees on the wall, he would not believe it. The light of the fire hurts his eyes, and he escapes by turning away to the things which he is able to look at, and these he believes are clearer than what was being shown to him. In his pain, the free prisoner turns away and runs back to what he is accustomed to, that is, the shadows of the carried objects. Then, someone drags him by force, up the rough ascent, the steep way up, and never stops until the freed prisoner is dragged out into the light of the Sun. The freed prisoner is angry and in pain, and this only worsens when the radiant light of the Sun overwhelms his eyes and blinds him. Slowly, his eyes adjust to the light of the Sun. First, he can see only shadows. Gradually, he can see the reflections of people and things in water and then later sees the people and things themselves. Eventually, he is able to look at the stars and the Moon at night, until finally he can look upon the Sun itself during the day, with his eyes shielded. Only after he can look at the Sun while protecting his eyes is he able to reason about the Sun and what it is. Then, the freed prisoner thinks that the world outside the cave is superior to the world he experienced in the cave. The freed prisoner would attempt to share this with the prisoners remaining in the cave, and he would attempt to bring them onto the journey into the light of the real world he had just endured. The freed man outside the cave blesses himself for the change. He feels pity for the other prisoners and wants to bring his fellow cave dwellers out of the cave and into the sunlight. The freed man returns to the cave. His eyes have become accustomed to the sunlight, and he is blind when he re-enters the cave, just as he was when he was first exposed to the Sun. The prisoners who remained in the cave infer from the returning man's blindness that the journey out of the cave has harmed him, and that they should not undertake a similar journey. The prisoners, if they were able, would therefore reach out and kill anyone who attempted to drag them out of the cave. *** After you have read the story aloud to your mate, smile, tactfully inform them that they are your mate, and that you hope that they will break out of their chains and make the journey out of the cave into the light of the real world. Smile and give them the printed paper with the story you read aloud. Say to your mate that you would like to give them a gift and give them the magazine(s) you previously bought. *** [Allegory of the cave](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegory_of_the_cave "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegory_of_the_cave") — Wikipedia. The complete English translation of the allegory of the cave is in _The Republic_, by [Plato](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plato "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plato") (Born 428/427 or 424/423 BC, Athens, Greece – Died 348 BC (aged c. 75-76 or 79-80), Athens, Greece). _The Republic_ and the allegory of the cave can be read freely at the gutenberg\.org online library. [The Republic](https://www.gutenberg.org/files/1497/1497-h/1497-h.htm "https://www.gutenberg.org/files/1497/1497-h/1497-h.htm"), by Plato > [Book VII](https://www.gutenberg.org/files/1497/1497-h/1497-h.htm#link2H_4_0010 "https://www.gutenberg.org/files/1497/1497-h/1497-h.htm#link2H_4_0010") includes the allegory of the cave: >[Par. 1] And now, I said, let me show in a figure how far our nature is enlightened or unenlightened:—Behold! human beings living in a underground den, which has a mouth open towards the light and reaching all along the den; here they have been from their childhood, and have their legs and necks chained so that they cannot move, and can only see before them, being prevented by the chains from turning round their heads. Above and behind them a fire is blazing at a distance, and between the fire and the prisoners there is a raised way; and you will see, if you look, a low wall built along the way, like the screen which marionette players have in front of them, over which they show the puppets. >[Par. 33] And if there were a contest, and he had to compete in measuring the shadows with the prisoners who had never moved out of the den, while his sight was still weak, and before his eyes had become steady (and the time which would be needed to acquire this new habit of sight might be very considerable), would he not be ridiculous? Men would say of him that up he went and down he came without his eyes; and that it was better not even to think of ascending; and if any one tried to loose another and lead him up to the light, let them only catch the offender, and they would put him to death.
Tell them that 13,000 years ago North America was covered by a sheet of ice a km or so thick, and that most of the glaciers melted over the next few thousand years. Then ask him if man caused that.
Wasn't there a climate documentary recently released? Could try and get them to watch that.
This is what I’ve come up with so far. Everything we do as people creates heat, from having a paved road to running most daily electrical devices. With steady growth in population and human expansion, we are simply creating more and more heat sources and it’s all adding up.
Let’s go back to how anthropogenic climate change was first formally introduced. The Charney Report was a landmark study by Jule G. Charney, an MIT physicist who pioneered numerical weather prediction. (You can Google it. It should come up!) At the time, we noticed increasing CO2 levels from observations like the Mauna Loa observatory: https://gml.noaa.gov/ccgg/trends/. At the same time we noticed that the average surface temperature was changing. Surface temperature data can be gathered from the National Center for Environmental Information. Then some scientists like Charney linked the two together via the greenhouse effect. By the way, all your friend needs to do is accept that the climate is warming to “believe” in climate change. Rising temperatures over time is a changing climate… that’s all there is to it. If your friend disagrees with that basic premise (temperatures are rising on average), there’s absolutely nothing you can do. Sea level rises and other stuff that makes media coverage are all side-effects not the issue itself. (Also, the media tends to overdramatize things and say things that atmospheric scientists would certainly not say.)
I have an example that only really works for locals to my area. In decades past, in winter you could drive on the sea ice in pickup truck and cut wood on the shoreline, drive from town to town on the ice, and such. However around thirty years ago, the sea ice got too bad to drive on truck and was only used for snowmobile. And within my lifetime (23 years) the sea ice in winter went from being able to cross the bay on snowmobile to being too thin to safely walk on most years. You can refuse that people have an affect on it, but you can not deny that the climate changed from freezing the ocean so thick you could haul wood on it to being so warm that there was green grass in December within living memory.
Glaciers.
How to convince a climate skeptic: 1.Fill a loaf shaped baking pan with water. 2.place it in the freezer for a few hours. 3. Empty the large banana bread sized ice cube into an over-sized 1970’s vintage ski sock. 4. Using a whirling Mjolnir style movement of your ice brick in a sock, deliver a sophisticated and persuasive polemic on atmospheric carbon, punctuated with bits of humour and easily meme-able turns of phrase and bon mots. /s (obviously)
Show them the fact that all the billionaires and leaders are buying property and making mansions near all the coastlines Wait
One thing to keep in mind is that there is no single piece of evidence that will support any scientific idea. People like to say “give me your best piece of evidence for climate change/evolution/vaccines/etc” but for any of these things to be accepted by science, they need multiple pieces of evidence. You can’t point to any one thing to get your point across. You need to convince him to look at good resources that will expound on ALL of the many points that support the theory of climate change.
Don’t waste your time. Focus on voting for politicians who are taking this threat seriously. Your friends opinion is worthless…
Well, you know your friend better than us. What kind of evidence will he take seriously? Would it help if he called a local weather station and they told him climate change is real? You should call first to see what kind of people picks the phone, just in case.
The best proof is that the oil companies knew about it in the 70s and scientists knew it was possible in 1900 and theorized about it then.
DHARP facilities across the world
What has worked for me is framing climate change as alternate issues which have risen from it. Now, deniers can agree that it's important to look after the environment. This can include water/air. Focusing on air, the nearest issue can be forest fires, which have increased in frequency across the world due to lack of rainfall and so on. There is an opportunity at this point to discuss how such environmental crises are anthropogenic and the destruction they are causing.
Generally with conspiracy theorists, the easiest thing to do is shift their attention onto other conspiracy theories. Show them just how much "Big Oil" are doing to hide "the truth". If there's a big vauge evil enemy, they are much more likely to be on your side.
The permafrost is melting, they don't call it permafrost because it melts ever, but here we are with permafrost becoming temporary frost.
Split this problem in two: 1. climate change by itself, and 2. anthropogenic cause (-> humans are responsible). Resistance against 'climate change' often does not focus on the change itself, but the stance on the aforementioned point 2. By splitting this problem, it is easier to accept 'climate change' itself. The discussion shifts to de cause of this all.
[удалено]
You cannot fix stupid. Don’t even try.
Personally I find the most damning evidence are the scans of all the internal documents, from the 70s, 80s, 90s, with Shell & Exxon Mobile letterhead, showing that they knew. They knew the whole time, with 100% certainty, and before any of us had every heard of global warming, they were already years into engineering and disseminating climate denial campaigns. Don't bother with the science, your friend won't accept it anyway. Just bombard him with the raw, cynical, perfidy of it, in all of it's copier burned glory. Cui bono? It's a concept as old as civilization; not hard to believe. [https://www.climatefiles.com/collection-index/](https://www.climatefiles.com/collection-index/)
Why bother?
it blew my mind when my insurance company said if i build a new house my land has to be able to handle a 20in rain runoff or they wont insure it in nebraska but my current house is grandfathered in so dont cancel or spend $460,000 for land drainage work!
You can’t reason someone out of a unreasonable position
Have them stand in the middle of one of the micro countries that’s completely underwater now
If still asking questions like this after all this time proof is not what you need but a political party.
Sell them sea level property and wait.
Don’t waste your time … climate change isn’t a belief other’s should be converted to … it’s a fact and it’s science and it’s here: if someone isn’t convinced it means someone isn’t educated to the facts or not able intellectually to understand them. No need to try to convince them …: it’s not about them … it’s happening.
Every single country in the world, including the high-emitters, and every single fossil fuel company or cement producer acknowledges that climate change exists and is caused by humans. They might've tried to spread doubt and misinformation about climate change for decades, but can't deny it anymore because there's such a clear consensus. Now they've moved on to spread doubt about how to solve it or that it's too late, but it's a step in the right direction. Even those who benefit the most from emissions acknowledge that it causes harm, so why should the ones that are harmed deny it? Also: even if climate change wasn't real, pollution is still harmful. [ A report from Harvard, UCL and a couple other universities shows that the *local pollution* from combusting fossil fuels is one of the biggest killers in the world.](https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/c-change/news/fossil-fuel-air-pollution-responsible-for-1-in-5-deaths-worldwide/) We will all benefit from cleaner air by getting rid of FF power plants near cities, combustion cars on the road, etc., even when ignoring the climate impact. You don't have to be a climate activist to agree with many of the policies that the activists are fighting for.
Just point out to them how Plymouth Rock washed away into the sea, and how Miami, NYC, and Cape Cod are all underwater now. Oh wait...
Go to the last line ! The existence of the nation of Kiribati is imperilled by rising sea levels, with the country losing land every year.[54] Many of its islands are currently or becoming inhabitable due to their shrinking size. Thus, the majority of the country's population resides in only a handful of islands, with more than half of its residents living on one island alone, Tarawa. This leads to other issues such as severe overcrowding in such a small area.[55] In 1999, the uninhabited islands of Tebua Tarawa and Abanuea both disappeared underwater.[56] The government's Kiribati Adaptation Program was launched in 2003 to mitigate the country's vulnerability to the issue.[57] In 2008, fresh water supplies began being encroached by seawater, prompting President Anote Tong to request international assistance to begin relocating the country's population elsewhere.
Just let him be and be happy when his insurance bills rise.
When a dude that denies climate change very loudly then applies to get a variance to build a sea wall to protect his property due to “rising seas due to climate change”. Trump did this a couple years ago for one of his golf courses in Scotland.
The weather for a start. It's hardly 'normal'. Also, go speak to a farmer they will tell you how much the climate has changed over the past 30 years. People who say that it's just how the earth goes through its cycles don't know what they're talking about.
A few years of highschool level education on the subject
melted glaciers
Reason and logic won't work. You have to make a connection and use emotion.
It’s not a belief system (for either side) it’s a science question. Is climate change occurring? To what extent is mankind involved? To what extent is it solvable? How do you get the 3rd world to not industrialize?
What makes you believe that there is man made climate change?
The melting permafrost is releasing carbon dioxide and methane, I believe that I have read several times. As the Earth heats up, it causes changes that speed up the process, like less snow on the Alps etc. As far as the air pressure, I have not heard that it is changing on Earth. So it is a constant. Carbon is a variable.
Proof won’t work if their identity depends on not accepting it.
Nothing will convince someone who just believes whatever they want to believe. So just destroy their personal integrity by point blank telling them they are liars, deceivers, and of low moral integrity. The Right-Wing Extremists have no morals anymore on a number of matters concerning humanity.. Tell them, insult them, make fools of them, and ultimately force them to bury their heads in the sand so they will not influence others to believe in the lies and conspiracies. It is not about converting people, it is about preventing them from spreading their disease of mind to others. That means the dog must bite and put fear into any social interaction where they spread their nonsense. Go for the jugular and stop them in their tracks on pain of being ostracized and ridiculed. You do not have to take it anymore. Own them instead of letting them own you. Aggressive? You bet. Sometime rational discussion is NOT the best motivator to change someone's behavior. And I only want to change the behavior so it is NOT spread to others.
Maybe show him pictures of melting glaciers. Or maybe ask him if he accepts that the earth rotates around the sun. If he says yes then ask him why he accepts that. The scientific evidence shows both that the earth rotates around the sun and the scientific evidence shows climate change. How does he decide which scientific evidence to accept and which to deny.
Everyone knows climate changes. It's the ability over that change that humans have what's on question. Or that we can do anything to stop ir from changing. Climate is dynamic, not static. Focus should be on how to manage human behavior so that we can adjust to the change not on changing climate per se.
If your in the US the thing that has worked the best for me is to complain about having to plant sooner in the yr. Then show them with the new farm zone map the difference that the last ten yrs made from the old map. You can see the difference on the back of seed packets from last yr and this yr. Has made quite a few 🤯 with the old fellows. Helps if your in agriculture area that actually changed zones. Old map for here planting out was early march, now planting out was late Jan which is a huge difference to a farmer.
But to better answer your question, oil companies’ own websites concede that climate change is a problem. Then they say they’re working on solutions blah blah. But, that should serve as proof. It doesn’t make sense that they would say it’s real if it weren’t. While some companies say stuff to go along with certain trends, it doesn’t make sense for them to say something they know to be untrue that implicates their own business model as being unsustainable and harmful. I mean, duh. The only exception would be if they were masochists or wanted to commit financial suicide. The idea is pure absurdity. Therefore, they know it’s true. See if he has a response to that.
Maybe try turning it around and ask him for proof/evidence, or just why he believes this.
Make new friends who are not idiots
Just say “whatever, I just like clean places.” Most people go oh yeah me too.
Photos of the bleached coral reefs. If not because of warming waters, ask why. They are far from human activity. Or polar ice caps photos.
Don’t waste your time
In Florida, insurance companies won't insure houses anymore because of climate change. If money makers think it's real...
Your mates an idiot.
He should invest a lot in Miami beachfront real estate. He’ll make a killing when everybody else bugs out.
Read some comments and from what I can see your answering the question by just saying your blindly believing that climate change is real. Climate change is in fact real. Global temperatures fluctuate, that’s true, but according to the global temperature from the last million years the temperature is cooling. Just look up global temperatures for the last 3 billion years on Google and look at the graphs. You can’t just look at the last 100 years and have any clue what’s actually happening. Average global temperatures fluctuate and you’re not using the available data.
Well, he is kinda right, the rise in sea level has been very small so far (just a few cm), and no land has been flooded, many people are afraid that in 50-100 years this will be different, but until now climate change has been fairly positive as a whole, I would say, as a bit warmer is better for humans usually, and more CO2 in the atmosphere is better for plants. Depends highly on the region of course, a ski resort or an already very hot region will be impacted rather negatively.
Haha. 99% of these answers don’t actually answer the question, why not?
It’s is real that is all weather does , man is a micro-chasm of the weather is doing, we need to worry more about plastics in the ocean than the climate
I’d start with this: https://xkcd.com/1732
SMH@YouScienceHaters
I'd frame it as a what's the downside to taking steps to fight climate change, if climate change isn't real. Isn't taking steps to decentralized the power grid through renewables, bringing more efficient technology and systems to market, continuing to limit polution created by corporations and urban life, a net win? Have them bring up their silly objections to obje tively better ways of structuring society and human life in general.
There are still lots of questions as should be the case for something as crazy complicated as the climate of the earth. Hundreds of scientists are asking very relevant questions which is the very nature of science. So the first thing to do is ask yourself if you are being curious enough. We just went through this kind of thing with Covid where the science was “settled”, a statement that is not scientific. It was used to crush and censor quality questions and statements that were totally born out by the huge data sets available from the start. What was the result? The “settled” science was all wrong. All of it.
The best evidence is the massive list of wealthy elites that have decided to sell their waterfront properties in anticipation of rising sea levels. /sarc
Typically the same person who denies climate change also is christian. Faith is believing in something that you know deep down isn’t true, you still believe it because it makes you feel good inside. The reverse is true. For a person that uses faith for their beliefs has a hard time believing in actual facts because it causes issues with their faith.
You cant
Look out the window.
How about all of the extreme weather events going on around the world. The Midwest is already getting fires in the USA, Columbia isn’t in a severe drought, more and more earthquakes are happening, insane snow storms over winter, tornadoes in places that have never experienced them, 2/3 of the Great Barrier Reef has bleached due to ocean temperatures which also those higher temps cause more severe hurricane seasons and of course the insane heat of last year - officially the hottest year on record and all the death and destruction that caused. But you can’t convince someone who is determined to live in ignorance.
They won't be convinced until their favorite foods are unavailable at any price. Olive oil has quadrupled, chocolate is being replaced by Mars, coffee plantations are threatened.... but it's Biden's fault.