How can I prove that global warming is real to a friend who refuses to believe it?

Question

From what I understand, global warming is not a debate, but an accepted fact. The controversy, then, comes from whether or not it is caused by human activity.

My friend refuses to believe that this is true, because he's seen something that says that Al Gore is basically incompetent and ignorant, and laughs off his documentary because it applied the use of a Power Point presentation.

He also cites that hundreds of scientists, previously on some United Nations panel on reducing global warming (I believe it was the IPCC or something to that extent), have recanted their beliefs and are now proclaiming that global warming is just mass hysteria, and that going along with it will create more job loss and economic downfall.

How can I refute his beliefs? How can I get him to consider a global warming caused by human activity? Is there any information I can give him or are there any sites that give both sides of the argument (i.e., which gives objections to global warming and then rebuts those objections with valid, reliable, and easily understood evidence for human-directed global warming?

Please help me with this. It would mean a lot to me to get my friend more aware of his contributions to the crisis, as well as helping both of us become more scientifically literate.

Big thanks to everyone who helps!

Answer 1

If your friend can read, give him these links. Danna's links below are also good. And make sure that he knows that the IPCC report has not been withdrawn. Notice how many anti-global warning posts are here in this section [a lot] and how many credible links or sources they cite [virtually none].



NASA and JPL

http://climate.jpl.nasa.gov/



Yale University

http://earth.geology.yale.edu/~sherwood/index.cgi?page-selection=5



National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration FAQ's

http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html



Scientific American

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=special-report-climate-change

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=clash-climate-change-coverage



Current information on Arctic Sea ice.

http://www.nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/faq.html



IPCC Fourth Assessment Report

http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/ar4-wg2.htm



Responses to the typical anti-global warming arguments

http://www.skepticalscience.com/



Pew Center, The Causes of Global Climate Change.

http://www.pewclimate.org/global-warming-basics/science-brief-092006



Union of Concerned Scientists

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science/Fingerprints.html

Answer 2

worldwide warming has no longer something to do with the temperature final Sunday at your grandma's homestead. it is regarding the melting ice caps. the common temperature has extra suitable sufficient that they are no longer only melting, yet melting at an increasing p.c... Scientist anticipate that if the cost maintains, then some many years from now ny city, and a great form of alternative coastal cities, would be below water. that's no longer the only difficulty nonetheless. Now the composition of the sea water might have replaced, as might the currents, and a great form of sea existence must be negatively affected. And it is going on. maximum folk disagree because of the political occasion they enroll in. that doesn't make experience, because of the fact the info are the comparable regardless. I do have faith there is sufficient info to help the thought that the above paragraph is real. In different words, i think of the Democrats are suitable in this subject. yet no longer because of the fact i admire the Democrats. I dislike the assumption of carbon taxes and the cap and commerce invoice only as plenty because of the fact the Republicans.

Answer 3

It is not real. It's getting colder and colder where I live in Central New York State in the Catskills. Scientist get paid to tell people this stuff even if they don't have the right data. Last Year we got 2 and a half feet of snow in the middle of April. That's only weather but still now there is not a temperature below freezing there until May.



I still think we should protect the planet because of how the rainforest is disappearing and stuff like that. I just don't think we as mankind should get to mixed up over nothing. It's just climate patterns like when the Ice Age ended do you think Wooly Mammoths were driving cars around to make it end?



And by the way, I hate that Dan1981Master of Science guy he always is here answering my questions. He must be on the computer 24/7.

Answer 4

“The fact that the global mean temperature has increased since the late 19th century and that other trends have been observed does not necessarily mean that an anthropogenic effect on the climate has been identified. Climate has always varied on all time-scales, so the observed change may be natural.”

(Houghton et. al., 2001, IPCC, 2001)



The climate changes all the time naturally, it is hypothesised that increasing co2 levels could cause warming. There was some basis to this assumption partly as it originally thought temperature and co2 correlated (as Al Gore shows in his film), but we now know that temperature leads co2 (Al Gore forgot to mention that in his film), and co2 in a lab can absorb some narrow bands of infrared. The theory of man caused warming still remains unproven despite years of extensive research.



Claims its settled or there is a concensus or XXXX support global warming are all political tricks and are nothing to do with science. If people just accepted the concensus then we would still think the earth is flat and god made the earth. Science progresses through skepticism, debate, falsification and paradigm shifts, those who accept unvalidated belief do no favours to science.



In recent years the global warming hypothesis has weakened and alternative theories have developed - so it is not settled.



It has been well proven that the co2 lifetime is very short and at most 4% of co2 is man made, this means all the rise in co2 has been a predominantly natural event caused by the warming of the sea. However, for some reason many people are not told of this or ignore it and plow on shouting from the roofs "its man!"



What we should infact be looking at is what warmed the sea, it certaintly wasnt co2.



"when all people think alike, no one thinks very much"



Note: Realclimate was set uo by an environmental PR company and is about as far from a reliable source you can get. Stick to peer review papers or the IPCC reports (only read the science sections, not the political summaries)

Answer 5

Who cares if the Global Warming theory is valid or not, if human CO2 emissions are causing it or not? - What we do know is that as a world, we are having some environmental and contaminate problems in general. We know that these problems are leading to a number of species extinctions, global air quality problems, food chain contaminate problems, and more. We have reasonable proof that deforestation causes localized climatic changes and encroaching arid regions. We have reasonable proof of a number of issues relating to the loss of top soil including China's soil killing off coral reefs thousands of miles away. We have reasonable proof that a number of the resources we once considered impossible to deplete have a projected life-expectancy. We have reasonable proof that we are running out of landfill space/affordable land fill space/landfill space on the other side of our back yards (For goodness sake, no one WANTS one in their back yard, just close enough it doesn't cost an arm and a leg to transport garbage to it.!) The remedies for these things are the same as for global warming.



Rather than fight over the validity of global warming, figure out what your friend does see as an evironmental issue or problem. There are plenty to cite. Figure out what you do agree to... Yes, I have heard the argument that you cannot determine a species extinct because there aren't enough around to count and thus make that determination with....There are a lot of "green living" activites just in playing the frugal living and money saving game.



Whether global warming, as we see it today or not, is a phenomena or not, there is plenty of evidence of localized environmental systems that are being harmed by human activity and human mis-understanding. If you want an excellent example, look to the Mississippi tributary and waster shed system. You've got folks who never really gave "swamp land" much of a thought other than to cover it up and make it productive now actively working towards wet-lands restoration. Are they doing it to "save the loon"? - Heck no! They are doing it to keep from being flooded out on a regular basis. The more they work on and understand wet lands and water sheds, saving the loon, re-generating loon habitat, and viewing the loon as an indicator species makes all the more sense.



Want an argument for planting a tree? It keeps you cooler in the summer by 5 to 20 degrees, and warmer in the winter by 5 to 15 degrees if its the correct tree, planted in the correct place. Trees also alter the ambient moisture during droughts. When in your back yard, a tree can mitigate or lessen the impact of winds. Plant enough trees in a parking lot's planter strips it can change the whole climate of that particular parking lot; black top or not. Plant so that they shade the side of a commercial building, and you can measure the difference in air conditioning energy used. Plant enough in a neighborhood and they can change the whole neighborhood's climate by just enough to make life much more comfortable. Your neighborhood's trees may affect the greater area's climate or even the world's; but, you're going to directly feel what's in your back yard. Your neighborhood's trees may affect the global ozone picture but, there is indication that it affects the actual air you breath in your back yard. The goal is more trees. There are definitely enough evironmental and climatic benefits at "trunk level" to warrant the trees. It's all the nicer that they may or may not positively affect the greater environment.



Similar cases can be made for a number of the "green life-style" activities. Certainly there is plenty of opportunity to better interact with our local environments with an end result we can see, touch, feel, smell, and hear. And, don't forget that we humans are entities within our local, community, greater area, and global environments. We are beginning to show contaminate and health issues associated with a lack of environmental consideration. Whether you believe in the "big picture" global warming theory or not, it is hard to not believe that we have small and large enviornmental problems directly affecting humans. Working on those will positively affect the global warming issue as it is viewed today. If not, it will still provide a more sustainable and better quality of life for us individually, all, and globally.

Answer 6

Sorry, but your friend seems a little more informed than you.



There is currently no evidence that man has made any significant contribution to climate change.



Some interesting facts.

1. During most of the past 2,000 years, the temp has been about the same or higher. Currently, we are barely over the average for the last 2,000 years.

http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2008/02/11/a-2000-year-global-temperature-record/



2. During the medieval warm period (820 – 1040 AD), Greenland supported farming. Those areas previously farmed are now covered in glaciers. Obviously the melting and reformation of glaciers is a cyclical occurrence.



3. The earth experienced a little ice age which ended around the late 1860's or so. This is about the time man started recording temperatures. This would be like measuring a lake depth after a severe drought, then worrying about it flooding as it rose to normal levels.



4. The earth has been warming for the last 18,000 years, since the last major glacier time period. During this time frame, the glaciers have been melting at a fairly consistent rate. Also, for most of the last 1 billion years, the earth had NO glaciers or ice coverage.

http://www.museum.state.il.us/exhibits/ice_ages/index.html



5. The AGW theory states that CO2 is the primary driver of temperature. They arrived at this idea because they did not know of anything else which could cause it. But during the 70's and during the current decade, temperatures dropped while CO2 continued to rise. This means that natural occurrences are driving temp, not CO2.



6. The Pacific Decadal Oscillation and sun spots provides a much better correlation to earths' temperature than CO2 levels ever have.

http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/01/25/warming-trend-pdo-and-solar-correlate-better-than-co2/

http://strata-sphere.com/blog/index.php/archives/5693



7. Polar Bears are experiencing a population boom. Coke sales in the arctics are through the roof. Polar Bears have been around for thousands of years, and remember, we are only at the average for the last 2,000 years. They lived through all the previously warmer climates. The original picture of 2 bears on a floating ice block was a complete scam. The photographer explained that the bears were in no danger and close to shore. The picture was lifted from a public PC by another passenger and sent around the world.



8. Many glaciers are expanding. Even Antarctica is growing on 98% of is land mass. Only 2% is melting.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1577399/Christopher-Booker%27s-Notebook.html





9. There is no consensus on AGW. This was a lie that has been propagated by the media.

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/monckton_papers/consensus_what_consensus_among_climate_scientists_the_debate_is_not_over/page-2.html



10. Yes we emit CO2 into the atmosphere and it is a greenhouse gas, but, we only contribute about .28% of all the greenhouse effect. Water vapor makes up about 95% of the greenhouse effect. CO2 and other trace gases round out the greenhouse gases at about 5% for all of them. Of that 5%, only 3% is CO2, and most of that is natural. Again, our contribution to the greenhouse effect is a paltry .28%

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html



11. The spread of disease is not attributed mainly to temperature. If this were the case, Florida would be a giant festering disease ridden cesspool. Economic standing is the primary determining factor in the spread of disease. Poor cultures can not fight the disease or eradicate the pests like more successful nations.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120778860618203531.html?mod=opinion_main_commentaries



12. Natural climate disasters (hurricanes, cyclones, etc) have never been scientifically linked to global warming (whether natural or man made).

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2008/02/21/noaa-global-warming-not-causing-more-destructive-hurricanes...

http://www.nationalpost.com/story.html?id=ae9b984d-4a1c-45c0-af24-031a1380121a&k=0

Answer 7

I'm having the same problem. Hell yeah, Global Warming is a proven fact. Greenland's landmass has been reduced 82% in the last 40 years. It's melting to this day. The "Wilkins Ice shelf" just melted in march, 2008. It rose sea level a good foot-and-a-half (1.5") . This can be catastrophic if action is not taken.



I've got the ame dilemma going on, too. I have a super-conservative friend who won't believe in vegetarianism and warming of the planet



FIGHT THE RIGHT

Answer 8

You could dig up some of the material from the 1970s when it was accepted fact that the earth was cooling and that the prime culprit was human activity. Some magazine ran a cover picture of earth mostly covered by glaciers. They told us the next ice age was just around the corner. Show your friend the temperature records of the last thirty years, that ought to do it, or maybe in the process you will learn not to be so gullible.

Answer 9

Al Gore is completely irrelevant. He's basically just a spokesman. Anyone who talks about Al Gore doesn't understand the science behind global warming.



His comments about the IPCC are just completely wrong and absurd. If he brings it up again, ask him to show you proof. He'll probably bluster about how he heard it on Rush Limbaugh or something.



People like that, there's really nothing you can do to convince them humans are causing global warming. They don't want to believe it, so they won't believe it, no matter how clear the scientific evidence is.



Nevertheless, if you want to try and convince him otherwise, I recommend the links below. The first one is an explanation of how we know humans are causing global warming. The second one is a series of common myths about the subject. Within each page are links to the source information from places like NASA, Science magazine, the BBC, RealClimate (website run by climate scientists), etc.

Answer 10

It's simple. Just tell him how much warmer it will be in 6 months, 1 year, 5 years and 10 years from now.



Show him the relationship between temperatures and co2.



Show him how you came to your conclusion.



When you're right 6 months from now, 1 year, 5 years and 10 years from now, how could he possibly argue that "Global Warming" is just a scam to raise taxes?

Answer 11

It;s easy.

Just come up with evidence to prove him wrong. Then find an experiment that proves your point and make him reproduce it. Then he'll change his mind.

Answer 12

show him the movie "An Inconvenient Truth" starring Al Gore



its VERY interesting and really shows you the facts and opens your eyes to all that is happening out there at this very moment.

Answer 13

Here's a good documentary

http://www.moviesfoundonline.com/great_global_warming_swindle.php

Answer 14

Read to him some Aesop's fables. If you find he's simple enough to believe them, there's a chance he might believe in global warming too.

Answer 15

do research, get facts and try that on your friend. Scientific info is more realiable than opinion.

Answer 16

You could try beating him until he believed. It's what Christians did.



Or you could just lie like everyone else.



Badger, you make it sound like his friend's use of facts to hold to his opinions is a religious thing. AGW followers are the "religious" type, not the normal, intelligent people who won't fall for this junk.

Answer 17

You could send him here to Alaska where we are having the coldest winter since 1917.

Answer 18

You can't, because, just like you, he is stuck in his beliefs and will not see the other side.

Answer 19

you can prove by showing him/her by a book OR ask a teacher! THERE

Answer 20

WWW.TheWeatherChannel.COM