I agree with Natasha that some are simply close-minded despite evidence-based arguments, but I am concerned about the degree to which the denialists might influence people who are simply exploring the discussion.
I have two other basis for argument: 1) Logic. I would ask a denialist, "Let me see if I understand you correctly. You are claiming that a bunch of scientists have gotten together in secret to fabricate a hoax on the global citizenry? So you believe this is a conspiracy?! Use some logic for just a second: if you were to fabricate a hoax, why would you choose a topic such as global warming, which is a direct challenge to the use of fossil fuel, and thus a direct challenge to some of the world's largest industries, the fossil fuel industries? Why would you actually choose the world's most powerful adversaries? C'mon, it doesn't make sense.
2) If you choose not to believe in science, then perhaps you'll believe in capitalism. Who funded much of the original science of climate change? Insurance companies, who stand to lose LOTS of money if they insure people whose property is vulnerable to the floods, draughts, stronger storms, higher temps (e.g., crop insurance), that are predicted to increase as the planet warms. These companies bottom line is to increase profits, so they funded a bunch of science, and they are wholehearted believers in the peer-reviewed science that demonstrates that the 8 billion tons of CO2 that humans emit every years is the main cause of the increase of CO2 from 280 ppm pre-industrialization to the 386 ppm we have today. We can see that sunspot activity has been low. It's our own emissions that are the culprit.
|
2 Actions
|