Re: Global warming. I wanna try this on you guys first.

[Jackpine Radical]

I start by asking the GW denier (GWD) if there is even some slight chance that the GW theory is true. If (s)he isn't willing to admit at least that much, I go find another denier.

OK, some slight chance that it's true. Mainstream scientists are 90 or 95% sure that the models are substantially correct. Will the GWD admit that maybe the chance that the theory is true is 10%?

Once they concede that much, I say (assuming they have a young grandchild; my first proposed target does) Let's make a hypothetical bet. We're going to play a variety of Russian Roulette. You take this revolver with 10 chambers in the cylinder. It has only one bullet. Point it at your grandchild's head. Your odds of winning are 90%, same as the odds you're willing to place against GW. Pull the trigger. If the gun doesn't go off, the world gets 40 more years of oil. However, if the gun fires, you're out one grandchild.

Willing to make the bet?


If 1 in 10 doesn't satisfy you, what odds would it take to get you to make the bet? How many cylinders would the revolver have to have before you'd place your current lifestyle above your grandchild's life?

[DeathToTheOil]

1. GWD? Don't you mean GOD?

Come to Jesus, baby!

[Angry Dragon]

2. Troubled by your use of a gun metaphor

[DCKit]

7. +1 with a bullet.

Besides, few are calling it "Global Warming". These days it's "Climate Change".

If they don't believe our weather is totally screwed, they've been living in a bunker 24/7/365.

[Zalatix]

12. No offense intended but a bullet to the head would be more pleasant than the consequences

of being a climate change/global warming denier, and being wrong.

Famines and the attendant starvation can be a bit of a slow and horrible death.

[salvorhardin]

3. The problem is that most climate change denialists aren't really denialists

They think global warming is occurring, they just don't think it's a problem, and/or they don't think humans are causing it, and even if humans are causing it, they don't think it'll be that big of a problem.

[salvorhardin]

4. You might also want to read the debunking handbook found at skepticalscience.com

They're experts at countering misinformation without either turning your audience off, or accidentally reinforcing their beliefs.

Main site: http://www.skepticalscience.com
Debunking handbook: http://www.skepticalscience.com/Debunking-Handbook-now-freely-available-download.html
They have an iPhone app as well: http://www.skepticalscience.com/iphone.shtml

[TrogL]

5. People were out in shorts today in Northern Canada

We haven't had a proper winter in years

[Moostache]

6. No denier cares enough to be reached anyway...unless you're buying votes with campaign cash that is.

I have given up on even mitigating the worst effects of climate change, at the rate we are going I only hope to die before I have to witness my grandchildren suffer the worst of the fate that awaits them.

To those future generations, I am sorry that I never made enough money to be in politics, to take even MORE money from other rich people to ensure that profits and margins were protected over your basic human rights to a survivable planet. I hope you are able to turn the tables on us in our graves and save a portion of society after the die-off and starvation. Please don't judge all us too harshly, some of us tried, but simply lacked the funds to reach enough of the rest...

[Motown_Johnny]

8. Many believe they are in the end times and expect the Rapture any day now

so trying to get them to focus on what the world will be like for their grandchildren won't ever work.

[RedOpinions]

9. Is it even possible to stop Global Warming at this point?

[joshcryer]

10. They'd make the bet. And you'd then know the depths of denialism.

[FreeJoe]

11. I don't like the way global warming is usually discussed

People seem to feel it is more important to declare an allegiance to an ideology rather than rationally discuss this issue. It isn't a simple question of are you for or against, despite how many people try to cast it that way. To me, these are all relevant questions:

1) Has the earth warmed in the last 100 or so years? The evidence is overwhelming that it has.
2) Was the warming caused by human activity? The evidence here is less overwhelming but still very strong.
3) How much worse or better off is the world because of the climate change that has occurred?
4) How much would it cost to reduce CO2 production sufficiently to reduce an increase in global temperatures? Would the benefits of that temperature reduction be worth the costs of that reduction in CO2 output?
5) Given all the options for reducing CO2 output, which is the most efficient?

I get frustrated when people try to argue it from a simple - You are either a commy control freak or you are a neanderthal denialist. I also hate the term "Denier" in the debate because it is an obvious attempt to link people opposed to taking action on global warming with holocaust deniers. Implying that your opponent is a Nazi sympathizer is not really a productive way to engage them on an issue.