Personally, I recommend starting out with a discussion of how you’ve changed your own life, rather than by using a word comparing people who do not believe that anthropogenic forces are mostly/solely causing hotcoldwetdry
The contest is joined. On one side there is the near-unanimous conclusion of thousands of active climate scientists throughout the world: the global climate is changing and human technology is the primary cause. From the other side we are told that “climate change” is at worst a “hoax” or at least a normal and natural phenomenon not significantly affected by human activity. This position is endorsed by right-wing media, almost all congressional Republicans, and a few bought-off “scientists” (“biostitutes”) lavishly funded by fossil fuel industries.
Wow. That should help with the discussion. Personal insults, denigrating those scientists as “scientists” and prostitutes, proclaiming they are bought and for by Big Oil (still no proof), oh, and using human technology that supposedly causes hotcoldwetdry to complain.
So how do you deal with a “denier” willing to engage you in a debate?
If the “denier” tells you that “God would not allow the climate to change” or that “Jesus will fix all that when he comes back in the next few years,” and then quotes the Bible as “evidence,” save your breath and his time. His is a hopeless case.
If the Warmists tells you that they haven’t made significant changes in their own lives, and cites “consensus”, you’re wasting your time, because they are more religious than a devout Catholic.
But if your adversaries are citing what they believe is “scientific fact” or otherwise exhibit some indication of a capacity to yield in the face of scientific evidence, they just might listen to reason and consider evidence — but don’t count on it.
Interesting, because Warmists refuse to listen to any evidence that discounts their cult, er, science.
Instead of citing an endless list of scientific studies, I propose a different approach. Pose just three questions.
- “Putting aside for the moment the issue of the reality of climate change, will you acknowledge that a recent survey of 10,000 active climate scientists found that 98% affirmed the existence of anthropogenic climate change?”
- “Will you acknowledge the existence of a recently released report of the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), an agency with 195 member countries, which concludes with 95% confidence that the climate is changing, due to human activity.”
- “How, then, do you deal with these acknowledged facts?”
Interesting. There are no scientific facts, just polls and consensus. The 98% thing has been thoroughly debunked, as has the IPCC 95%. And there are no facts that follow, just allegation, implication by causation, and insults.
The findings of the IPCC and of those thousands of climate scientists portend unimaginable horrors., unless the global community of nations and their scientists act immediately and decisively.
“Eventual” vindication of their warnings will be too late.
Yet, their models have fallen apart. Personally, I have always enjoyed a good scary story, TV show, and movie. “Climate change” has more in common with werewolves and vampires than anything in reality.