Perhaps the argument should not be focused on whether there is or isn't global warming as a result

[still_one]

of man, but instead on something we see and feel everyday.

The effects of pollution. The increase, in the number of asthma and lung related disease, both young and old has a direct correlation with the increase of man-made pollution. Anything to reduce that is a good thing.

Acid rain, contamination of of lakes and rivers, all pose major health risks to society.

I cannot see how those who do not believe in global warming, can justify the effects of pollution that exist?

[msongs]

1. cuting pollution is good for its own sake...no other reasons needed nt

[still_one]

6. My point is they won't listen to the science behind global warming, but they will listen to

the effects of pollution on their children and themselves

[rfranklin]

12. You are assuming that logic and facts will sway the wingnuts...

Data will not convince them. I have often provided factual information to my acquaintances who read those right wing viral emails. The response is "we believe what we wanna believe and that's it!"

[Spider Jerusalem]

2. There is no argument. The science is not in question.

Despite what a lot of morons, right-wingers, corporate shills and assorted twits may want to think.

[still_one]

4. You just said it, a "lot of morons". You can't reach them unless you show them something they can

experience. Pollution is an immediate effect, and a consequence of global warming

[Lorien]

7. Yep, though it's amazing that even a few DUers remain bamboozled

on this issue by the RW shills and twits.

[still_one]

10. I haven't seen any DUers deny global warming, and thought there are probably some, I cannot

see those arguing against cleaning up the environment

[napi21]

3. I heard a statement yesterday that made a lot of sense and

seemed like it would be a good one to repeat.

What if all the deniers are right? What's the worst thing that could happen if we still persued all the efforts against global warming? We'd have a cleaner planet, less reliance on foreign oil, cleaner streams and healthier fish for our consumption, etc. Sure sounds like no downside to me!

[tabatha]

5. What I said to a right-winger climate denier

about 3 years ago. There is no downside.

[still_one]

8. Exactly, and that is how I argue it with those who don't believe in global warming /nt

[WonderGrunion]

9. When a repuke starts blathering about how climate change isn't man made

I say, who cares. We still need to start effecting changes to deal with it regardless of what caused it. That means cutting carbon emissions and putting forward a serious strategy to handle the effects on our coastlines and agricultural zones.

[still_one]

11. and the million dollar question, do they agree? /nt

[WonderGrunion]

13. They tend to get that "Deer in the headlights" look

They don't know how to react beyond the talking points. If the glaciers all melt and half of Florida ends up underwater, does it matter if Al Gore is right about it being caused by man or not?

[still_one]

18. That is why I tend to not even discuss the science behind global warming with these clowns

I try to move them in the direction of cleaning up the environment

[HughMoran]

19. I do the same

There is no point getting into to complicated technical arguments with right-wing dolts anyway, so I simply appeal to their common sense. I might say "well, whatever the reason, we need to break our dependence on ME oil as it's not going to last forever" (worked great when gas was nearing $5/gallon) and perhaps another argument that I know will hit home with them.

[FarCenter]

14. Greenhouse gasses are not pollution

Most greenhouse gases are just higher concentrations of gases that occur naturally in the atmosphere, such as carbon dioxide, methane and water vapor. They are completely harmless at the concentrations that have the effect of trapping more solar radiation and raising the temperature of the earth.

You can add catalytic convertors to cars, increase the efficiency of combustion and scrub powerplant smokestack emissions to reach almost pure cabon dioxide and water vapor as the exhaust gas. This is still greenhouse gase emission with zero pollution.

[CJCRANE]

15. True but we can see the effects of man made pollution

and its degradation of the environment and food chain. That negates wingnuts who claim that man has no effect on the planet.

[FarCenter]

17. The axe and the plow have had more effect on the environment than pollution

Ever look down at the surface of the earth from an airplane window.

The damage to the environment is obvious.

[elocs]

16. The deniers are big gamblers who bet that even if global warming exists it is not man caused.

If it turns out they are wrong and there is something we could have done, but didn't, well grandkids and great grandkids, too bad, so sad.

I heard a denier on public radio the other day, a guest on their call-in program so he must not have been just some joe-blow. He even questioned if we had any moral obligation to make sure the planet is saved and livable for future generations. A woman called in who seemed to somewhat agree with him but said we should do our best to be good stewards of the earth and his attitude was why? What moral obligation do we really have to make the planet better for future generations?

Myself, I am not optimistic. I think that not only will nothing effective be done to halt or even practically slow global warming, or better, climate change, I don't believe anything effective will be done in time to address its consequences until the wolf is at the door and then it will be too late.