Climate change deniers

Veganite

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Jul 30, 2017
Reaction score
3,807
Location
Vancouver, BC
Lifestyle
  1. Vegan
So, here's my dilemma....I have a dear friend that I love dearly, but often struggle with in conversation. He is a climate change denier, among other far left beliefs. I have tried talking sense into him many times, but he feels climate change is a completely fabricated story, created by globalists, no less, in their master plan to cull the population. It sounds crazy, but this is what he truly believes. I find this so upsetting, and would love to talk some sense into him, somehow.

I am asking my fellow forum members for suggestions, for a way that I can talk sense into him. What might he listen to and/or understand? What are some good sources I could present him with? I think it would be easier converting him to veganism, sadly. Any suggestions are appreciated here, as I find it frustrating to no end.

Oh, if you are a climate denier coming here to tilt this thread, have at it. I am open to arguments that support his cause too, that's if there's any real science behind it. If the studies are legit, and not some quack that's already been debunked, I will read them, with an open mind.


*
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hog
So, here's my dilemma....I have a dear friend that I love dearly, but often struggle with in conversation. He is a climate change denier, among other far left beliefs.

"Far Left"? That is so far left it's now far right.
Typically Republicans are climate deniers. Typically far left are progressives and want a New Green Deal.
Oh. maybe it was just a typo?

:(
I don't think there is anything you can do. The science, knowledge, and facts have been in-your-face mainstream for over 10 years. Can he be bothered to watch Inconvinet Truths (one or two)?
Just about every nature documentary made over the last 10 years includes evidence of global warming. Of course, he can maybe accept global warming and still not accept that it is man-made. But in 2020 I'm pretty sure that this is willful ignorance and there is nothing you can do.
 
I wish you all the best, too, with your discussions and yet I don't think there is any way to convince someone of something they have taken ownership of. It would be like trying to talk my evangelical family out of evangelicalism (is that a word?) or carnivores into veganism, or flat earthers into roundness... like with all of these things you just have to be a good example of good stewardship of the earth and figure out a way to stay friends.

What is your goal in trying to convince him? is it to change habits that he has? or to be right? or because he is in danger (like we all are)?

Emma JC
 
On the other hand....
If there is any chance for Earthlings we need to get people to change their behaviors.
Sure, legislatures can enact laws but we really need individuals to buy in and change their behaviors.
The documentaries, the books, the articles are only effective if you can be bothered to watch/read them.
So one-to-one conversations is probably our Best Hope. So keep trying. Do the best you can do.

However, I have yet to convert even one person to veganism. I can't even get my friends to bring a f˘¢king reusable cup to Starbucks.
 
Does your friend at least acknowledge that humans are wrecking the environment and that species are going extinct at an unprecedented rate? Perhaps to start with you can talk about environment and habitat destruction. And then you could move on to talk about the holes in the ozone layer, which was another major global-impact environment issue, and how that problem now finally actually seems to be under control, thanks to scientists, international agreements and monitoring.

You can also try to find out what sources of information he's decided to trust about climate change, and then do a little investigation and critical thinking around that. Funding sources and so on. Who knows what might turn up ...!
 
I wouldn't spend much time arguing with that person. I've read forums that are frequented by those who deny human-caused climate change. Their arguments are based on the belief that the historic climate data has been falsely modified - very hard to fight such conspiracy theories. And/or, they claim that rising global temperatures will save lives overall - without providing proof from a reputable source.

The underlying sentiment is that atmospheric scientists and environmentalists are a bunch of gelded sheep, trying to take away their big cars and/or their coal/petroleum jobs. Another version of this sentiment is that environmentalists are a bunch of socialist elitists, trying to destroy free markets and forcibly convert the world into a big commune.

There are a lot of good people out there that (for reasons I don't understand) have not had the benefit of education and economic opportunity. U.S. News and World Report published this report on the state of Mississippi: https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/mississippi . These good people have voting power - hence the election of Donald Trump.

In 2016, the Democrats tried to make reshoring (bringing jobs back to the United States) part of their platform, but not strongly/effectively enough. In 1993, Al Gore promoted the North American Free Trade Agreement, which provided a structure/incentives to U.S. companies to manufacture in Mexico:
. As a Democrat, I remember being shocked that Al Gore would do such a thing.
.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Hog and beancounter
My goal is for him to see the truth, and not some crazy conspiracy. It's the fact that he does not agree that humans have an impact on the planet, at all. He thinks that's all a load of BS, What he will do is find studies that scientists did 75-100 years ago, where they predicted massive changes in climate, that never happened. He will compare today's scientists with those, saying "they were wrong back then, so why would they be right about that now?" Their predictions were all wrong, he will claim.

I just wish there were solid facts I could provide him that might at least make him think about it a little more. Right now there's just no budging on it. He has his mind made up, it would seem.

Oh. maybe it was just a typo?
typo, my friend.


*
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hog
  • Like
Reactions: Hog
My goal is for him to see the truth, and not some crazy conspiracy. It's the fact that he does not agree that humans have an impact on the planet, at all. He thinks that's all a load of BS, What he will do is find studies that scientists did 75-100 years ago, where they predicted massive changes in climate, that never happened. He will compare today's scientists with those, saying "they were wrong back then, so why would they be right about that now?" Their predictions were all wrong, he will claim.

I just wish there were solid facts I could provide him that might at least make him think about it a little more. Right now there's just no budging on it. He has his mind made up, it would seem.


typo, my friend.


*

Waste of time. Climate policy is determined by government. If we want the United States to re-enter the Paris Climate Change Accord, we need to elect Biden. The way to elect Biden is to get more registered Democrats to vote. Trump won because 66% of his voting base voted in 2016. The Democrats can win, if they can achieve good voter turnout.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hog
Sigh...

Veganite, I don't think you (or anyone) can convince someone of global warming without acknowledging the fact that it, along with many other "worldwide threats" are both used (and have been planned to be used) as vehicles for the erosion of power of nation states in favor of worldwide bodies. Most people ignore the evidence of such as "crazy conspiracy theory" but also expect to be fully acknowledged on whatever data they present.

I myself am a skeptic. I'd say I'm on the fence, because I'm neither a believer or disbeliever, but I lean towards skeptic. Global warming was proposed by the Club of Rome in 1991 as an engine to consolidate power and push towards world government, just as a worldwide pandemic was proposed (among other scenarios) by the Rockefeller foundation 10 years ago to usher in new surveillance tech and achieve the same ends in terms of eroding the power of nation states and giving power to worldwide bodies.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hog
Sigh...

Veganite, I don't think you (or anyone) can convince someone of global warming without acknowledging the fact that it, along with many other "worldwide threats" are both used (and have been planned to be used) as vehicles for the erosion of power of nation states in favor of worldwide bodies. Most people ignore the evidence of such as "crazy conspiracy theory" but also expect to be fully acknowledged on whatever data they present.

I myself am a skeptic. I'd say I'm on the fence, because I'm neither a believer or disbeliever, but I lean towards skeptic. Global warming was proposed by the Club of Rome in 1991 as an engine to consolidate power and push towards world government, just as a worldwide pandemic was proposed (among other scenarios) by the Rockefeller foundation 10 years ago to usher in new surveillance tech and achieve the same ends in terms of eroding the power of nation states and giving power to worldwide bodies.

.
Please provide proof and links. Useful scientific determination requires it.
.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hog
Per NASA, the planet Venus has an atmosphere that is 96.5% carbon dioxide: Venus Fact Sheet

Not surprisingly, Venus' surface temperature is 464 degrees Celcius: Venus Fact Sheet . Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas.

NASA describes Venus' high temperature as a "runaway greenhouse effect": Venus .

Venus' temperature is much hotter than that of Mercury, even though Mercury is closer to the sun. Per NASA, Mercury's surface temperature is [only] 167 degrees Celcius. The difference is due to Mercury's atmosphere. Although Mercury's atmosphere contains a number of different gases, they are present in very small quantities (see link in next sentence). Per NASA, Mercury's atmosphere is essentially a vacuum: Mercury Fact Sheet . No atmosphere = no greenhouse gases = no greenhouse effect.

NASA has webpages that describe evidence of human-caused climate change on Earth: Climate Change Evidence: How Do We Know?
.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Hog
The science of global warming is indisputable, don't ask him to provide proof. In fact, do we really need to debate at all with someone saying jibberish like "Global warming was proposed by the Club of Rome in 1991". There's no more need to debate with him that if he said that 1+1=3. You are giving him a platform by inviting him to provide proof which could lead to a debate. The debate ended in about 2005.

I (mostly) don't debate climate science anymore with deniers.

We urgently need solutions. We can still (eventually) get deniers to drive electric cars by pointed out their benefits, use solar panels by pointing out they are cheaper in the long run, try vegan meals by pointing out that they are tasty, and so on.

Whenever someone is denying, just make a quick statement about the clear scientific consensus and then move to talk about the other benefits of renewable energy like less polluted skies and less dependence on foreign energy and more jobs.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hog and Lou
.
Please provide proof and links. Useful scientific determination requires it.
.

For the Club of Rome:

If you are unfamiliar with the quote, you can check it out here: The First Global Revolution - Wikipedia

Wikipedia isn't my favorite source of info, but with a quote like that, it's hard to deny when the book has already been published publicly. Here is the quote:

-- Because of the sudden absence of traditional enemies, "new enemies must be identified."[2] "In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill....All these dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome. The real enemy then, is humanity itself." --

pg 115


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For the Rockefeller Foundation (on the pandemic, listed under "lock step" program, written in past tense):

Scenarios for the Future of Technology and International Development :: News :: The Rockefeller Foundation


This publication has since been taken off the Rockefeller website, but is right there in the web archives.


Per NASA, the planet Venus has an atmosphere that is 96.5% carbon dioxide: Venus Fact Sheet

Not surprisingly, Venus' surface temperature is 464 degrees Celcius: Venus Fact Sheet . Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas.

NASA describes Venus' high temperature as a "runaway greenhouse effect": Venus .

NASA has webpages that describe evidence of human-caused climate change on Earth: Climate Change Evidence: How Do We Know?

Neko, you are claiming that NASA is knowingly misleading people about atmospheric carbon dioxide and its effect on planetary temperature (including Earth). Please provide proof. Otherwise, your claims have little worth.
.

I actually didn't claim anything about NASA in this thread. However, now that you mention it, I don't find NASA to be a credible authority.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hog
The science of global warming is indisputable, don't ask him to provide proof. In fact, do we really need to debate at all with someone saying jibberish like "Global warming was proposed by the Club of Rome in 1991". There's no more need to debate with him that if he said that 1+1=3. You are giving him a platform by inviting him to provide proof which could lead to a debate. The debate ended in about 2005.

I (mostly) don't debate climate science anymore with deniers.

We urgently need solutions. We can still (eventually) get deniers to drive electric cars by pointed out their benefits, use solar panels by pointing out they are cheaper in the long run, try vegan meals by pointing out that they are tasty, and so on.

Whenever someone is denying, just make a quick statement about the clear scientific consensus and then move to talk about the other benefits of renewable energy like less polluted skies and less dependence on foreign energy and more jobs.

Agreed.
.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hog
Veganite, I suspect your friend has wider issues with science and truth as well as biases that affect his ability to make judgements. All the IPCC reports and documentaries and science in the world are not going to work if you don't address the underlying issues. But that will require a huge effort and may not be worth it.

I also think that debating with deniers is damaging because it puts the need for action on hold. If you're not trying to change his personal behaviours and it's just a truth issue, I'd be tempted to drop it. If you want to change his personal behaviours, use other arguments.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hog and Lou
The science of global warming is indisputable, don't ask him to provide proof. In fact, do we really need to debate at all with someone saying jibberish like "Global warming was proposed by the Club of Rome in 1991". There's no more need to debate with him that if he said that 1+1=3. You are giving him a platform by inviting him to provide proof which could lead to a debate. The debate ended in about 2005.

I (mostly) don't debate climate science anymore with deniers.

We urgently need solutions. We can still (eventually) get deniers to drive electric cars by pointed out their benefits, use solar panels by pointing out they are cheaper in the long run, try vegan meals by pointing out that they are tasty, and so on.

Whenever someone is denying, just make a quick statement about the clear scientific consensus and then move to talk about the other benefits of renewable energy like less polluted skies and less dependence on foreign energy and more jobs.

Solutions require investment. Investors want near-term profits, but profitable solutions can take years to develop. That's why we need government incentives in the short term. We need Biden to win.
.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hog and Lou
Veganite, I suspect your friend has wider issues with science and truth as well as biases that affect his ability to make judgements. All the IPCC reports and documentaries and science in the world are not going to work if you don't address the underlying issues. But that will require a huge effort and may not be worth it.

I also think that debating with deniers is damaging because it puts the need for action on hold. If you're not trying to change his personal behaviours and it's just a truth issue, I'd be tempted to drop it. If you want to change his personal behaviours, use other arguments.

No, certainly no action on hold.

I worked in the solar energy industry for 17 years. Global development of solar energy has resulted in huge price reductions in solar panels.

Forbes magazine article chart of PV (photovoltaic = solar) cost history, by year:
Link: Solar Energy Revolution: A Massive Opportunity

1589859813636.png
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hog
Insofar as reasons to be vegan is concerned, even though I am a skeptic of climate change and take an undecided/fence sitting position, I still list environment as a reason to be vegan because whether or not climate change is real, what is real is that far too much land goes to accommodating and feeding animals destined for slaughter - land that could be used to raise crops for humans. The "environmental impact" isn't limited to the so called "global warming" that we are always hearing about, but also to local communities suffering the effects of nearby animal ag farms - whether that be the smell of spraying feces as fertilizer, the stench, run-off into rivers/water supplies etc. No top down/worldwide solutions are needed for these things, but lots of people going vegan can help put an end to them at the local level.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Booney and Hog
A Word of Caution:

I have not noticed a universal consensus among scientists about human-caused climate change. We must remember that honest and reasonable people can disagree on basic issues. I say that the debate should continue.

Some people say that Santa Claus is not real. I have tons of evidence to suggest that Santa is real. By the way, Pluto is a real planet and not a dwarf planet. Pluto will always remain a real planet in my mind. Maybe you agree with me. Maybe you do not agree with me. But, the debate is fascinating.
 
Last edited: