How to argue and win an argument with climate change skeptics?

Seriously, you encounter people denying climate change calling nasty names and being the loudest in the room?? I'm not saying it doesn't happen, but my experience is that it's usually the other way around. The hysterics pushing their global warming theory are the loudest, most insulting people I have met - and even encountered plenty of them here on Yahoo Answers... who have used some very un-scientific insults to make their point. I've never heard of anyone producing genuine scientific evidence of man made climate change that hasn't already been debunked by the sceptical scientists. I've also been made aware that of the 2,500 IPCC scientists many of them aren't really scientists in the field at all, even fewer of those that are - are actually independent and more than 30% of those who are independent (enough for reasonable doubt) don't believe humans are responsible for the current state of the climate. After all many, many years ago almost every scientist in the world believed the world was flat... it was the minority who believed the world was spherical... now a similar thing is happening with global warming. It was the minority right back then, and a chance that the minority could be right now.

The point is, while there is still "reasonable doubt" about the anthropogenic climate change theory, these people who are sceptical are entitled to have an opinion and share it among friends or in a public forum such as this. The damning Climategate emails, the growing Antarctic ice, even the northern hemisphere is currently going through the coldest winter this year than it has been in the last 10 years. Some people who also DO believe in AGW, still don't agree with the way the governments are going about fixing it - many people don't believe cap and trade or emissions trading is any more than a useless tax on everything.

People really need to stop talking and coming up with their own responses about what to say next and actually start listening to others. These deniers may have a very good point, but while the believers keep looking into science that they don't really understand - the argument will go on forever! Don't believe everything you see. There are many reputable scientists all over the world who have a different theory on climate change and they deserve to be listened to as well.

Not necessarily, if what he says doesn't add up, his PhD is irrelevant! I was particularly unimpressed with his astronomical cycles since he didn't make clear exactly what they were. Yes, he did mention a few planets and a few time periods but how these were related was not explained! In any case even if there was a planetary effect, (I don't believe there is) it would be cyclical, wouldn't it? Why would the planets now be producing a warming effect? As for the solar orbit around the galaxy, to suggest that it could be connected to the temperature rise of recent decades, that's just moronic! It's just too slow! PhD or not, I think this gentleman has already decided that it is not CO2, for psychological rather than scientific reasons and his analysis reflects that belief. Where his PhD is significant is that he is able to produce convincing material to the nonspecialist. I'll try and give this a bit more time later.

Why Dear ? I genuinely thought you were going to give us the answer ???

I liked the answer another contact gave you where he said and rightly so... you cannot

lead a good argument without placing yourself in the other persons mind and question.

Understand what the other person is saying , and demand that they also understand what

you are saying .. or at least give it thought.

There lies your answer.... we need to listen and read what the other person is saying and

where they are coming from in their equation.

Though i believe it is warming... because simply for me logic said it is so.. when i look at all

the industry and what humans do to the earth in all manner over the years. And how we have attacked some of the most beautiful forests and destroyed most.

A scientist the other night on this very debate was pointing out that in the Roman Empire .... so

lets think about that for a moment... they ( the scientists ) have proof that temperatures were

higher than today !!

So is temperature interchangeable over the years or are we in for some nasty surprise ?

Like the theory then proof of many scholars before us. we need to keep our eyes and mind open .

I do understand what you are saying. We used to be hot and heavy on here trying to give people honest and straight science about our climate, and it got ugly.

Most of us just stopped saying anything, because it was exactly as you said, if they cannot win the argument, they will scream at you until you go away.

This past year I went back to college. I am an environmental geology student. Most of my schooling has been on-line. I have taken Physical Geology and Lab, Historical Geology and Lab, Weather Investigations, Oceanography Investigations. . Partnerships with governmental agencies such as USGS, NASA, AMS, Learner, ESA, EPA, etc. in almost every 3 lessons there were conclusions that climate change is problematic for human health and survival. Anyone can go there today. This is strict data gathering.

All I know is I will do the best I can to defend earth and the resources we must have to survive.

You'll probably find half the population are skeptical of climate change - most of us don't shout it from the roof tops, like you're average Copenhagen protestor.

For your deeply religious friend, climate change probably looks like one of a number of doomsday cults. He would put climate change proponents in the same category as people who joined the Branch Davidians, Ohm Shin Ri Kyo, or some other cult with selected biblical passages or scientific concepts used to support their ideas. These cults tend to have Charismatic leaders and fill an emotional need in some people.

You won't stand a chance of really convincing anyone unless you really try and see their point of view first. From there you can then understand what their objection to your point of view is and argue your point rationally. Unless you are willing to concede (to yourself most of all) that you may be wrong then you will never be able to convince others of that - think about it.

Some idiots will just tell you that anyone who doesn't follow the orthodox line is a nutter. Go tell that to Einstein and his theory of general relativity when he was challenging Newtonian physics.

However, if you can't bring yourself to re-evaluate your own views as a precursor to debating others, then just exaggerate. As global warming scientist Stephen Scheider put it in an interview with Discover magazine way back in 1989:

"We have to offer up some scary scenarios, make simplified dramatic statements and little mention of any doubts"

I don't know if it is real. My personal problem with the "Average" earth temperature, is that I think the way in which they measure it means nothing. it went up 1 degree? Well if you average the temperature of my house at 70 degrees, and then you put a welder in my house and turn it on, it's like 5000 times hotter than the sun, but that doesn't make my HOUSE that hot, it may mildly raise the temperature, but the Average temperature will be skewed like hell when you have that much heat in one area being added to the equation. The earth goes naturally through hot and cold cycles. We dont' know what normal is. It's hard to say it's from greenhouse gasses.

Despite your appeal to authority, all of these authority figures got it wrong. They all said that the earth was going to warm up substantially over the past decade. It did not. We had flat temperatures. Now these same organizations are saying that although global warming is on a hiatus, it will come back with a vengeance. Despite their poor track record you believe them with a passion. That is a belief.

Stick to pure science. You can demonstrate that:

1) Humans are increasing CO2

2) CO2 causes a net increase in heat flow, confirmed by satellite measurements etc

3) 'Climate sensitivity', the warming we'll get from a doubling of CO2 is probably 2-4.5C.

1) and 2) here are effectively certain. 3) is just very likely. These 3 together are enough to demonstrate global warming.

Don't get sidetracked by other arguments, there are hundreds of scientific papers to support your argument; they will have very few. The reaction to expect is a series of straw men and other logical fallacies, followed by good sounding arguments that try to lead you off at a tangent. Don't get drawn off, just hammer through the logic and science.

Any scientist listening to you would likely agree with your position. It hardly ever works on 'skeptics' though; the majority of them seem uninterested in changing their preconceptions.

EDIT: A few of them will take issue on point 3). Idso suggests a tiny climate sensitivity but I strongly disagree with their approach. Roy Spencer, who from what I've read is very respectable and speaks a lot of sense, thinks that climate sensitivity is smaller too. As do Lindzen, Choi and a few others.

There is scope for disagreement on point 3) and I'd agree with that. Personally I think it's likely that the scientific consensus position is right, and I struggle to see how people could argue that there isn't a chance of a 2C+ climate sensitivity.

Always remember what ever he says say 3 pr oven scientific facts to prove him wrong so your credible.

VERY GOOD SITE.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/

Physisct proves Climate Change deniers wrong using facts.