Hacker News Reader

Comment by ent101 | Hacker News Reader

In a few words how can I convert a climate-change denier to a believer? and vice versa...

I just want see what the short, compelling arguments of either side are.

Playing devil advocate: If we are in the warming cycle, of course we are going to see ice reduction every year. The thing that might be hard to prove is the causation link between human activity and the reduction of the ice. Like how much percentage is caused by humankind and not regular earth cycles is not something we know.

"What evidence would you need to see to be convinced that climate change is indeed happening and is a threat to humanity?"

"What proof do you have that humans are _causing_ the climate to change, a climate which has been changing ever since the formation of the Earth 4.5 billion years ago? And what proof do you have that homo sapiens - who have only been on this planet for roughly 200 thousand years, of which have only been embarking in Industry for around 200 of those - can have any effect whatsoever in somehow stopping the climate from changing? Lastly, what definitive proof is there that the trace gas CO2, comprising of 0.04% of the Earth's atmosphere - of which humans are respnsible for a mere 0.01% of that - is the primary temperature control knob of this planet?"

The CO2/CAGW/Climate Change alarmism Emperor has no clothes!

Wow. Just to be clear, I'm not putting the burden of proof on you. I accept that the burden is on the side arguing that anthropogenic climate change is real.

I'm simply asking you what standard of proof you would require. What would convince you?

EDIT: for anyone else wondering about the "0.04%" factoid thrown out, this article is a pretty good explanation of how the greenhouse effect works and how a trace gas can have a noticeable affect on global temperature: https://www.sciencealert.com/co2-is-only-a-tiny-part-of-our-...

Yes, let's hear the real story about CO2 shall we?

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/05/01/a-story-of-co2-data-m...

Sigh...why is it so hard for you to answer this question?

In a world where you are convinced by the evidence that anthropogenic climate change is real and poses a grave threat to humanity over the next century, what does that evidence look like?

I'm not remotely qualified to read your long article and try and either debunk it or determine that yes, it does indeed have real scientific merit despite its disagreement with the overwhelming consensus by experts in the relevant fields. Nor do I particularly feel the need to. I lump anthropogenic climate change in with evolution: I don't have the expertise to evaluate the evidence myself but it seems like virtually everyone who does is on one side of the argument. That's good enough for me.

Answer the question maybe?

What would it take to convince you?

All the rank cowards downvoting it. Go ahead. You KNOW deep down that you've either been gullible and taken in by the alarmism, or you're complicit in the agenda which is utilising existential fear - like all tyranny-supporting agendas do.

It will be interesting to see how statements like this are viewed in another 30 or 40 years. I suppose most deniers will deny ever having denied, but hopefully there will be clear historical records to set things straight.

Yep. You went ahead and used the "denier" slur. That says a lot more about you than it does about me.

"what models predicting catastrophic temperature increases have been had predictive power for more than 10 years (climate timespan)?"

"what peer reviewed study shows the earth climate have a net positive feedback loop for warming with xxxx ppm C02?" (show hard science on the runaway heating scenario)

> climate-change denier to a believer?

So even if someone is fine with climate change, or doesn't believe it, or doesn't think we can do anything about it, or doesn't think we are causing it.

I use another angle: pollution.

Trying to improve our air quality to help reduce instances of various illnesses and/or trying to reduce landfill etc

Most people want things like cleaner air, or less exposure to harmful chemicals in plastics, or safe drinking water. People are more invested in things when doing so can directly benefit them (or they perceive that it can). With climate change we get a lot of vague narratives, some doubt, and a bunch of varying predictions (for example 20 years ago I was told in school we could have as little as 20 years left of fossil fuels...)

Engage with your heart rather than your mind. When two people can understand eachother's needs, the appropriate course of action becomes obvious.

I think you are unlikely to get what you want if you are more concerned about changing someone's beliefs rather than simply convincing them to take some specific action which could help you with your need.

I don't think there is any way to "convert" a denier. This isn't a case where logic or well-reasoned arguments will make a difference. People have varied and deep-seated reasons for denying climate change, and I think it will take a generational change-over to finally make a difference.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com