Ask HN: Concise sources of evidence making the case for climate change? | Hacker News Reader

Ask HN: Concise sources of evidence making the case for climate change?

6 points_bxg110 comments

My father is a climate denier, but one that's willing to hear out an argument. He thinks observed climate change is just a natural part of the earth's cycle and that the crisis has been manufactured to win votes.

What are some accessible yet substantial sources that lay out the evidence for the core mechanisms of climate change? I know that more-specific time scales and effects are less certain, so I'm really just focused on the "climate change is caused by human emissions of greenhouse gases and is going to be a really big problem" side of things.

View on HN

This list of rebuttals to common objections was posted recently:

https://grist.org/series/skeptics/

Not exactly what you asked for, but maybe it can help.

For what it's worth, I strongly agree with everyone who's saying facts and figures aren't the answer. The only honest way to change somebody's mind is (1) have a thorough understanding of the issue at multiple levels; (2) listen to and hear their reasons and make them feel heard; (3) understand what's behind their belief; and (4) use all that to nudge them in the "right" direction (yours) in ways that don't conflict with what you found in (3). "Proving" people wrong with evidence is often not effective, especially on issues like this.

People are more interested in feeling right than being right. (This isn't good or bad, just Goodhart's law.) Try to help him be right without feeling wrong, whether that's with evidence or not.

In any case, good luck.

That source looks excellent, thanks.

I know there's a strong tendency for people to hold to their beliefs against evidence, but I think the degree of that effect varies for everyone, and I just think it's unhelpful to write everyone off as completely hopeless.

All popular treatments I've found assume belief in anthropogenic climate change as given. So far I've found not one accessible source that lays out the evidence in a way that non-experts can follow. Something that uses scientific facts to build a case that ordinary people can follow like what we see in works like 1491, Sapiens, or Oxygen.

What I find inexcusable is climate activists who assume that people who are skeptical of the link between human activity and climate change are idiots. Those claiming the link have the burden of proof, and they've done a pitiful job of presenting the actual evidence.

Your dad is completely justified in his skepticism.

For example, New York was under a kilometer of ice a mere 20,000 years ago. Ditto with many other places in the world. The fact that we see glaciers in retreat and overall warming is entirely consistent with a warming trend that ended the Pleistocene Era and paved the way for civilization as we know it.

Those making extraordinary claims (humans are warming the planet) must provide extraordinary evidence. And that has never been done.

So what you're saying is "I do not know of any evidence showing a conclusive link between co2 emissions from human activity and rising temperatures?" What would change your mind? If the answer is "evidence," then exactly what kind of evidence would be required?

When I read aazaa say

> What I find inexcusable is climate activists who assume that people who are skeptical of the link between human activity and climate change are idiots. Those claiming the link have the burden of proof, and they've done a pitiful job of presenting the actual evidence.

I think thats the actual complaint. Consider the essay The Categories Were Made for the Man[1] written by psychiatrist Scott Alexander about the phenomenon of gender dysphoria and whether we should use people’s preferred pronouns. The essay includes this paragraph about the opposing position:

> I take this argument seriously, because sticking to the truth really is important. But having taken it seriously, I think it’s seriously wrong.

This attitude seems to be what aazaa is seeking: one which takes seriously its burden to pursuade.

[1] https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/11/21/the-categories-were-ma...

Willing to hear an argument and willing to be convinced by an argument are different things.

Best to find the emotional state behind his beliefs. And that requires empathy and listening, lots of non-judgemental listening, and echoing and understanding.

The evidence isn't the issue. People's minds aren't changed by facts. They're changed by emotion. If you want him to see the way you do, you need to see why he is motivated to think the way he does, and address it.

That's cynical and unhelpful. His emotional reasons are that he hangs out with Republicans and watches Republican news. I can't change that. But I believe he'll respond to facts that are clear-cut enough and not vague.

Nope, it's true. Lots of studies have been done. Look it up "facts dont change our minds" .

Smiling at the runaway-recursive irony here (while agreeing with you).

"Facts are not the most effective form of argument" might be a little less contentious. Evidence is neither necessary nor sufficient and sometimes counterproductive.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com