I think human CO2 emissions are causing warming but that most climate-related regulations, such as banning gas stoves in newly constructed homes, future bans on gasoline powered cars, heavily subsidizing electric vehicles, or restricting exploration for fossil fuels, are not worth it. Economist Bjorn Lomborg and columnist Holman Jenkins of the Wall Street Journal espouse this view, as does economist John Cochrane at https://johnhcochrane.blogspot.com/2020/12/unintended-conseq....
https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/...
The carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has almost doubled since the industrial revolution. Since the 60s alone, we've gone from 320 to 420 PPM. The entire sharp increase not only maps onto the industrial revolution, but is also entirely predictable: we are taking carbon which is sequestered in petroleum and coal from the ground, and releasing it into the atmosphere.
There has been a very predictable cycle of increases and decreases in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere over the last million years, and we're well above the cycle's previous highs.
That's it, IMO. Avoid predictions, avoid associating climate events to it, just focus on CO2. Isn't it surprising by how much we've increased the atmospheric CO2? Shouldn't we be hesitant to shift planetary scale atmospheric composition on such orders of magnitude, and confident in our abilities to have access to energy that doesn't continue to move carbon from the ground into the atmosphere? Wouldn't it also be useful to focus on technologies that allow us to move carbon out of the atmosphere?
Disinterestedness is NOT a good proxy for intelligence. It’s a great proxy for fear of being wrong on the Internet though!
And low conviction is obviously negatively correlated with convincingness. There are tactics that a high-conviction person ought to use both to mitigate their own blind spots and to meet people where they are, but “have less conviction to convince people” is a laughable idea.
Your question implies that you are completely convinced of the man-made climate change. What strong science-based arguments convinced you of the man-made nature of climate change ? Just review them and tell them your friend.
After that you should be prepared to have a dispassionate discussion on the topic with your friend.
Perhaps you ought to ask your friend why the "propaganda" has caught him?
1. First are they wanting to discuss anything with you, or are you passively watching them on social media and now wanting to engage? The latter is different and falls more under science communication than an exercise in epistemology.
2. Practice the principle of charity and giving benefit of the doubt. You aren't convincing them, but trying to understand each other's opinions and claims so you can both converge on a better understanding of the world.
3. Come to some agreement that you are both not experts on the topic, so much of both of your opinions are on your own understanding of so-called-expert's claims (both for and against man-made climate change). Also important here is experts should have evidence readily available so that claims can be reviewed by other experts.
4. Try and come to an agreement that you will both "write" something like a page that each can read and respond to .What their top 3-5 arguments are supporting their opinion. What is 1-2 pieces of evidence that would convince them the other position is more correct. Limit it to like 2-3 replies back and forth. Try and agree that no additional arguments would be mentioned so that you can both come to a shared understanding of the 3-5 claims. Direct citations and links are helpful so that there is enough specificity to review.
5. Most likely you'll end up agreeing to disagree. It is a complicated topic, but hopefully both of you will continue due diligence in understanding the science.
IMO having structure and time between exchanges helps focus the discussion. Unless you are already neck deep in the topic, anything you say impromptu will not be convincing because you won't have a sufficient background to explain the evidence and any counter-arguments to the evidence.
I highly recommend the book "The Skeptics' Guide to the Universe: How to Know What's Really Real in a World Increasingly Full of Fake" which is close to a reference manual for how to think critically. The podcast they have is great.
Good luck!
B) As something of a "climate denier" myself (whatever the hell that label means), I'd say that the biggest problem with these discussions is people are often lumping a few different concepts into one general group and then begging you to accept that general label.
These concepts are the following:
1) Human activity impacts the Earth's temperature.
2) This impact on the Earth's temperature necessarily leads to catastrophic harm.
3) The only solution to this is measures like trying to limit human reproduction, increased government control of the economy, and only using certain fashionable energy sources like solar and wind while eschewing nuclear energy.
One can agree that concept 1 reflects reality, or concept 1 + 2 reflects reality, while having a completely different approach to concept 3.
No, not Zeus. Gravity or chicken.
You have to decide which is more important, the friendship, or being "right". I strongly advise you to keep the friendship, and let the matter rest. Otherwise you will find yourself in an echo chamber of only friends that agree with you.
Please consider that you might change your own opinion on this matter at some point.
2. Temperature Increase: Global average temperatures have increased in the same time frame, consistent with climate models that incorporate human-induced factors.
3. Ice Melt: Accelerated melting of polar ice caps and glaciers cannot be explained by natural variability alone.
4. Ocean Acidification: Increased CO2 is causing oceans to become more acidic, impacting marine life, a phenomenon not accounted for by natural cycles.
5. Extreme Weather Events: Increased frequency and intensity of extreme weather events align with predictions based on human-induced climate change.
6. Fossil Record: Historical climate changes were gradual, taking thousands to millions of years, unlike the rapid changes observed recently.
7. Isotope Analysis: Carbon isotopes from fossil fuels are distinct and show up in atmospheric samples, differentiating them from natural carbon sources.
Or more importantly, how do you know you have not fallen into the propaganda trap?
Maybe leave your friend alone?
Arguing about these issues tends to cause people to subconsciously double-down to reinforce their views.
You could try to discuss something more specific but related. For example maybe you can both agree that cutting down all of the trees in the Amazon and using the area for cattle is not a good idea. Maybe.
- https://xkcd.com/1732/
- https://climate.nasa.gov/How about the other way around?
My point being, for a subject like this, either you or your friend cannot verify the 'science' except take someone's word.
(I'll give some credence to astronauts, pilot, astronomers etc. who have relatively direct evidence that someone like me with a desk bound job)
The idea that you "cannot verify" is a very pedantic comment, and using flat Earth as a basis only makes it more comical. Of course you can't know anything "with absolute truth", but nobody cares about that. The relative distribution of evidence strongly disconfirms some hypotheses, there is already a culture of strong distrust and independent verification in the hard sciences (see the LK-99 saga), and you can rely on the long-term output of that process in the same way you can rely on your GPS to just work without needing to independently launch your own satellites. Needing to be your own scientist now is like needing to be your own farmer: completely unnecessary for most people.
[0] Yes, flat earthers claim these results are spurious because of optical illusions caused by hot air or the like. But the relative distribution of the evidence for _that_ hypothesis is pretty darn slim, which only furthers my point.
I wish I could tell that you were right. But you are wrong. This tell me more about how much you have spent time on a even a simple subject like food if you lived in USA. How can I even have a more nuanced conversation on a complicated subject?
No you cannot, unless you are willing to spend a few years on it. I can tell right away that have not explored any subject in depth.
Can you or can’t you?
In any case, even if you couldn’t, it would still be foolish to look at all available evidence and arrive at “we don’t know” or “we ought not make engineering or policy decisions on the basis of this hypothesis.”
Smart people don’t say “the world is hard to interpret so all hypotheses are equal.” They say “the world is hard to interpret so we need to make difficult decisions with incomplete information.”
My guess regarding most people that I know, is that a typical 'climate-denier' ( the ones I know) generally have investigated more that his 'climate-acceptor' counterpart who seems to have unequivocally accepted the official position.
Note I'm not saying that that the 'climate-denier' is right, I'm saying that he has made more efforts to understand the information available to him. Who is to say who brought into the 'propaganda'?
'Party allegiance can affect our judgment and behavior, many experiments show. When Shanto Iyengar of Stanford University and Sean J. Westwood, then at Princeton University, asked a group of Democrats and Republicans to review the résumés of two fictitious high-school students in a 2015 study, their subjects proved more likely to award a scholarship to the student who matched their own party affiliation. People in the experiment gave political party more weight than the student’s race or even grade-point average.
In a landmark 2013 study, Dan Kahan, a Yale University law professor, and colleagues assessed the math skills of about 1,000 adults, a mix of self-described liberals, conservatives and moderates. Then, the researchers gave them a politically inflected math problem to solve, presenting data that pointed to whether cities that had banned concealed handguns experienced a decrease or increase in crime. In half the tests, solving the problem correctly showed that a concealed-carry ban reduced crime rates. In the other half, the correct solution would suggest that crime had risen.
The result was striking: The more adept the test-takers were at math, the more likely they were to get the correct answer—but only when the right answer matched their political outlook. When the right answer ran contrary to their political stance—that is, when liberals drew a version of the problem suggesting that gun control was ineffective—they tended to give the wrong answer. They were no more likely to solve the problem correctly than were people in the study who were less adept at math.'