There is a logical argument I’ve been using very successfully against people who question or deny anthropogenic climate change, also known as global warming, climate instability, climate chaos & a whole bunch of other terms. Over the many times I’ve presented this line of reasoning, no one has even attempted to refute it, & a number of times my interlocuteur has come around to accepting the logic, which is a very gratifying feeling for me, so it appears to be a quite formidable argument, & I offer it to you in case you’d like to use it.
Also, when debating this issue (or any issue in which you want to persuade people one way or another), treat people with respect & don’t automatically assume that since the individual with whom you’re conversing is questioning global warming that he or she is necessarily a climate denialist or troll. There are many people out there who come to these sites sincerely trying to find the answers having heard both sides of the debate. The other side is intentionally sowing confusion & doubt in the general population, & it’s succeeding with help from compliant politicians & the corporate media. To immediately dismiss the individual as a shill or troll or idiot will dispose that person to be hostile & disbelieve you, & may also lead onlookers who read your posts to think of you as belligerent & ganging up on a poor, innocent individual just seeking the truth. Remember, you want to convert people to the science & truth & away from demagoguery, disinformation & brainwashing by fossil fuel companies & their corporatist politician spokesmen, & you won’t do that by appearing to attack or insult them from the get go. If after several exchanges with this person it becomes crystal clear that this person is a corporate shill or stubbornly unwilling to accept anything you say, then be my guest & call this person out on it.
Whenever you find points of agreement with your conversant, acknowledge it. Show understanding for how that individual might’ve come to his/her point of view, because it can be difficult to parse out the truth with so much conflicting information & politicians & media afraid or unwilling to fact check & call out lies being spread.
Finally, know the subject very well, & be prepared with solid facts that you can readily provide, & also be familiar with the usual arguments & “facts” that denialists typically spew out & be ready to counter them with much more compelling science. So here it goes…
We often hear claims that global warming isn’t real, or if so, it’s not caused by humans.
That human emissions didn't cause previous polar ice melting doesn't mean that it isn't causing the current polar ice melting. Scientists have looked at all possible factors that might cause global warming, both human & natural, and have concluded overwhelmingly that the current global warming is due to human emissions.
Here are a few things to take into account while trying to determine the truth of the matter. First, keep in mind these principles: environmental health is directly correlated with personal health; rather than trying to control nature, which has gotten us the environmental disaster we face today, we need to learn to work with nature; water is far more valuable than oil or gas; trees are far more valuable than coal, or even gold, because unlike oil, coal or gold, we need water & trees simply to survive. If we abide by these truths, then we might have a chance to turn things around and keep this Earth habitable.
Try to look at motivation. It is amply & demonstrably clear that fossil fuel companies (& other huge multinational corporations) have plenty of financial motive to do & say whatever it takes to make sure that they have the ability to extract whatever they want to extract & to poison whatever & whomever in the process, to make the maximum amount of profit possible, and to avoid any taxes or restrictions, no matter the cost to the rest of the population. Their greed has shown no bounds. Just look at Koch, Exxon, Monsanto & Walmart, for example. It is much harder to attribute any comparable motive, though many have tried, to scientists & academics whose lifelong mission has been to discover & explain the truths about the universe & how things work (except where they’re tied with corporations, in which case they may toe the line of the corporatist climate deniers).
Aside from that, if you are faced with these 4 outcomes:
1) the scientific community is right & we take the necessary measures to alleviate climate change: it could be expensive in the short run, but we would safely overcome the challenges with minimal climate & environmental disruption, and the overall financial benefits compared to doing nothing are likely to be very positive in the long run. The money we put up front will have been an excellent investment.
2) The scientific community is wrong but we take those measures, anyway: it would be expensive, but there’d be many other benefits we’d gain: much less pollution, we’d continue to have a diverse flora & fauna, we’d still have most of our resources, we’d be much healthier, we’d likely have a healthier employment situation, a less uneven wealth distribution, etc., & we'd gain new economic opportunity & advantages in the long run through innovation. Again, an excellent investment.
3) The scientific community is wrong & we don’t take those measures: we’d save some money in the short run, but our resources would be greatly depleted & therefore much more expensive; disputes over water & other resources would likely get steadily more frequent & violent, we’d have pollution of all kinds, our oceans would be dying (they already are), there’d be catastrophic extinction of plants & animals (already we’re experiencing one of the greatest mass extinctions in the history of this Earth due mainly to human activities), our overall health would likely decline, etc.
4) The scientific community is right but we do nothing: then even more calamitous extinction; huge displacement of human populations; widespread conflict over our remaining resources, including water; widespread & uncontrollable disease; increasing crop failure; intolerable weather; gigantic destructive storms; possible extinction of the human species.
So what is the best outcome? Actually, it’s #2: scientists are wrong but we take preventive measures – the response coal companies & other climate deniers are telling us not to take! We would’ve put some money upfront, but the side benefits would be well worth it & we wouldn’t’ve had to go through some of the worsening effects of climate change that we feared were imminent. #1 would be the 2nd best outcome, because although we go through some tough times weathering through some of the effects of climate change that appear sure to come no matter what we do, we will have survived & overcome our greatest world climate threat we’ve ever faced. Even though it seems to be the industrialists’ dream, #3 comes out a poor 3rd, because although we wouldn’t face the climate challenges (beyond the normal cycles we’ve always faced), we’d still be a much worse place due to widespread pollution, resource depletion, wildlife extinction, etc., which would eventually take us down, anyway, even without being pushed on by climate change. Of course, #4 would be the worst. Conclusion: we must take the (now urgent & drastic) measures necessary to combat climate change & environmental degradation, whether 97%+ of the scientists are correct, or certain powerful, superwealthy fossil fuel & chemical industries such as Koch, Exxon, Monsanto & Dow are correct. No matter which side is right, taking these measures is clearly the prudent course to take. The longer we wait, the more expensive it will be and the more we will suffer.
Even if these outcomes were considered to have equal possibility (they’re not: the probabilities overwhelmingly favor #1 or #4, depending on our action or inaction), and even if you didn’t care about maintaining animal & plant diversity, a pleasant environment, clean air, clean water, your own personal health & longevity to say nothing about other people’s (because if you were this way, you wouldn’t care about other people), but only about getting rich, any reasonable businessman, in order to insure himself from the worst consequences, which would be so dire that the differences among the other outcomes become trivial, would choose to take appropriate measures to tackle this possible climate change challenge.
Much more prudent would be to take measures to prevent or alleviate these disastrous changes, like becoming much more energy efficient, converting to clean, renewable energy, conserving more, paying for greenhouse emissions, consuming less, reducing intake of meat, avoiding plastic, expanding mass transit, avoiding driving cars, abandoning industrial farming for regenerative organic farming, reforesting our lands, reducing chemical spills & agricultural runoff... All these things would help forestall climate change, have many other benefits to the environment, people's health & the economy, & aren't hard to do, other than getting past the well-funded industries trying to block such measures. It's a far better way than suffering through ever greater environmental & economic disasters, wishing & hoping that technology will come up with something to protect us & clean things up.