How to convince someone man-made climate change is real?

Hmm... Probably not worth the time. If they don't understand the problem by now, it's probably because they don't want to know. Or they've been living in a cave somewhere.

Be patient. Listen sometimes, don't get sucked in, you do not have to agree, or signal belief. Arguing may well be counter productive.

Many people don't accept that human CO2 emissions are warming the planet because they disagree with the policy prescriptions that climate activists draw from that. So separate them and say that accepting the role of CO2 emissions does not necessarily entail a particular policy response.

I think human CO2 emissions are causing warming but that most climate-related regulations, such as banning gas stoves in newly constructed homes, future bans on gasoline powered cars, heavily subsidizing electric vehicles, or restricting exploration for fossil fuels, are not worth it. Economist Bjorn Lomborg and columnist Holman Jenkins of the Wall Street Journal espouse this view, as does economist John Cochrane at https://johnhcochrane.blogspot.com/2020/12/unintended-conseq....

How do I convince someone that the Idolatry has become a problem again? They're smart but they've been seduced by Idols themselves, and have wandered away from my beliefs and my idols.

Perhaps you ought to ask your friend why the "propaganda" has caught him?

A current WSJ article, "Why Tribalism Took Over Our Politics. Social science gives an uncomfortable explanation: Our brains were made for conflict" https://www.wsj.com/politics/why-tribalism-took-over-our-pol... is related to your question:

'Party allegiance can affect our judgment and behavior, many experiments show. When Shanto Iyengar of Stanford University and Sean J. Westwood, then at Princeton University, asked a group of Democrats and Republicans to review the résumés of two fictitious high-school students in a 2015 study, their subjects proved more likely to award a scholarship to the student who matched their own party affiliation. People in the experiment gave political party more weight than the student’s race or even grade-point average.

In a landmark 2013 study, Dan Kahan, a Yale University law professor, and colleagues assessed the math skills of about 1,000 adults, a mix of self-described liberals, conservatives and moderates. Then, the researchers gave them a politically inflected math problem to solve, presenting data that pointed to whether cities that had banned concealed handguns experienced a decrease or increase in crime. In half the tests, solving the problem correctly showed that a concealed-carry ban reduced crime rates. In the other half, the correct solution would suggest that crime had risen.

The result was striking: The more adept the test-takers were at math, the more likely they were to get the correct answer—but only when the right answer matched their political outlook. When the right answer ran contrary to their political stance—that is, when liberals drew a version of the problem suggesting that gun control was ineffective—they tended to give the wrong answer. They were no more likely to solve the problem correctly than were people in the study who were less adept at math.'

Don't bother, you are so convinced that man-made global warming is real that you couldn't enter into a genuine discussion on the matter (i.e., one where you might change your mind), and if you won't, why an Earth should they. It's as pointless as a Christian and a Muslim arguing about who has the better God.

Sometimes people simply repeat what they've heard, while others stay silent. Active critical thinking in your conversations with your friend would be best. Introspect each point in excruciating detail.

>>> What are some strong science-based arguments, preferably simple & short to prove mand-made climate change / global warming is real?

Your question implies that you are completely convinced of the man-made climate change. What strong science-based arguments convinced you of the man-made nature of climate change ? Just review them and tell them your friend.

Start by identifying and understanding arguments against your position. After that, push yourself to come up with your own unique arguments against your position. Then take the time, which should be considerable, to have the debate with yourself backed up by data on both sides. Depending on how much time you devote to these exercises I’d guess this process should take on the order of months to years.

After that you should be prepared to have a dispassionate discussion on the topic with your friend.

1) OP, I'm glad you're passionate about the home we all currently live on. But please conduct a thought experiment and replace some of the terms like "Climate Change" in some of your sentences with the religious deity of your choice. If you did that, you might notice that you're coming across as something of a zealot, and maybe aren't yet at the right stage of your development to be persuasive in these matters. Is putting yourself on a road to losing your friendship worth it to you?

2) As something of a "climate denier" myself (whatever the hell that label means), I'd say that the biggest problem with these discussions is people are often lumping a few different concepts into one general group and then begging you to accept that general label.

These concepts are the following:

1) Human activity impacts the Earth's temperature.

2) This impact on the Earth's temperature necessarily leads to catastrophic harm.

3) The only solution to this is measures like trying to limit human reproduction, increased government control of the economy, and only using certain fashionable energy sources like solar and wind while eschewing nuclear energy.

One can agree that concept 1 reflects reality, or concept 1 + 2 reflects reality, while having a completely different approach to concept 3.

Don't bother. If they've accepted non-man-made climate change liken the situation to being in a locked room that is on fire. Are you going to just sit there and burn because you specifically didn't light the fire? Or will you try to find a fire extinguisher.

People do not like to be fooled. As others have said, first listen. Then respond by planting seeds about where they are getting their science and facts. The seed that gets people out of cults is when they realize they've been duped. Unfortunately emotional wins over rational every time.

Worldviews aren't rational. They come from information streams and are also strongly influenced by group identification. That affects everyone regardless of their viewpoint.

Arguing about these issues tends to cause people to subconsciously double-down to reinforce their views.

You could try to discuss something more specific but related. For example maybe you can both agree that cutting down all of the trees in the Amazon and using the area for cattle is not a good idea. Maybe.

I'd be more likely to ask him how he became a denier - living in denial looks like a lot happier way to be than what I'm doing.

>but has fallen into the propaganda trap.

How about the other way around?

My point being, for a subject like this, either you or your friend cannot verify the 'science' except take someone's word.

You seem to completely accept that man made climate change is real. How did you get there? Which strong science based arguments have you seem that convinced you?

Or more importantly, how do you know you have not fallen into the propaganda trap?

Maybe leave your friend alone?

1. Rising CO2 Levels: Atmospheric CO2 levels have risen significantly since the industrial revolution, closely correlated with human activities like burning fossil fuels.

2. Temperature Increase: Global average temperatures have increased in the same time frame, consistent with climate models that incorporate human-induced factors.

3. Ice Melt: Accelerated melting of polar ice caps and glaciers cannot be explained by natural variability alone.

4. Ocean Acidification: Increased CO2 is causing oceans to become more acidic, impacting marine life, a phenomenon not accounted for by natural cycles.

5. Extreme Weather Events: Increased frequency and intensity of extreme weather events align with predictions based on human-induced climate change.

6. Fossil Record: Historical climate changes were gradual, taking thousands to millions of years, unlike the rapid changes observed recently.

7. Isotope Analysis: Carbon isotopes from fossil fuels are distinct and show up in atmospheric samples, differentiating them from natural carbon sources.

I don't see anyone providing what you're asking for, which is "strong science-based arguments". See these sites:

  - https://xkcd.com/1732/

  - https://climate.nasa.gov/

Just looking at the comments here, it’s amazing how many people are falling so far into the “aloofness/disinterestedness ≈ intelligence” trap so as to make arguments like “arguing climate change is like arguing between holy books” or “strong conviction means you’re wrong” or “strong conviction means you’re unconvincing.”

Disinterestedness is NOT a good proxy for intelligence. It’s a great proxy for fear of being wrong on the Internet though!

And low conviction is obviously negatively correlated with convincingness. There are tactics that a high-conviction person ought to use both to mitigate their own blind spots and to meet people where they are, but “have less conviction to convince people” is a laughable idea.

Philip Kitcher and Evelyn Fox Keller, two major philosophers of science, have written a short and accessible dialogue, The Seasons Alter: How to Save Our Planet in Six Acts, in which an "Informed Citizen" attempts to answer objections from a "Climate Skeptic". It might have some clues worth taking up: https://wwnorton.com/books/9781631492839

Limit the conversation to atmospheric carbon dioxide.

https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/...

The carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has almost doubled since the industrial revolution. Since the 60s alone, we've gone from 320 to 420 PPM. The entire sharp increase not only maps onto the industrial revolution, but is also entirely predictable: we are taking carbon which is sequestered in petroleum and coal from the ground, and releasing it into the atmosphere.

There has been a very predictable cycle of increases and decreases in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere over the last million years, and we're well above the cycle's previous highs.

That's it, IMO. Avoid predictions, avoid associating climate events to it, just focus on CO2. Isn't it surprising by how much we've increased the atmospheric CO2? Shouldn't we be hesitant to shift planetary scale atmospheric composition on such orders of magnitude, and confident in our abilities to have access to energy that doesn't continue to move carbon from the ground into the atmosphere? Wouldn't it also be useful to focus on technologies that allow us to move carbon out of the atmosphere?

I know I can not change someone else's mind. I'm not arrogant enough to assume I am the ultimate arbiter of truth.

You have to decide which is more important, the friendship, or being "right". I strongly advise you to keep the friendship, and let the matter rest. Otherwise you will find yourself in an echo chamber of only friends that agree with you.

Please consider that you might change your own opinion on this matter at some point.

A lot of terrible responses here, but here's my terrible take:

1. First are they wanting to discuss anything with you, or are you passively watching them on social media and now wanting to engage? The latter is different and falls more under science communication than an exercise in epistemology.

2. Practice the principle of charity and giving benefit of the doubt. You aren't convincing them, but trying to understand each other's opinions and claims so you can both converge on a better understanding of the world.

3. Come to some agreement that you are both not experts on the topic, so much of both of your opinions are on your own understanding of so-called-expert's claims (both for and against man-made climate change). Also important here is experts should have evidence readily available so that claims can be reviewed by other experts.

4. Try and come to an agreement that you will both "write" something like a page that each can read and respond to .What their top 3-5 arguments are supporting their opinion. What is 1-2 pieces of evidence that would convince them the other position is more correct. Limit it to like 2-3 replies back and forth. Try and agree that no additional arguments would be mentioned so that you can both come to a shared understanding of the 3-5 claims. Direct citations and links are helpful so that there is enough specificity to review.

5. Most likely you'll end up agreeing to disagree. It is a complicated topic, but hopefully both of you will continue due diligence in understanding the science.

IMO having structure and time between exchanges helps focus the discussion. Unless you are already neck deep in the topic, anything you say impromptu will not be convincing because you won't have a sufficient background to explain the evidence and any counter-arguments to the evidence.

I highly recommend the book "The Skeptics' Guide to the Universe: How to Know What's Really Real in a World Increasingly Full of Fake" which is close to a reference manual for how to think critically. The podcast they have is great.

Good luck!

Perhaps he is opposed to political solutions and top-down control of society implied by belief in climate change(justifying it "for the good of the planet") proposed by jet-setting elite who will never change their lifestyle: a hypocritical class of "climate priests" pushing for extreme austerity and totalitarian control of the average man while their luxury lifestyles are exempt. The whole climate politics begins to feel like a cult with carbon indulgences, original sin of pollution, doomsday prophets and sermons,etc This of course is very beneficial for fossil fuel industry to turn climate research into "church of climatechangeology" in the eyes of public that will create huge opposition to any practical reform just because it feels like forced "doctrine from the experts" - regardless of actual value or truth. Climatechangeology and "Faith in Science" arguments will not receive "rational understanding" from the value of their accuracy as long as underlying political framework is built like a cult - they don't have the neutrality of fact-based science and neither moral power/conviction of religious doctrine. Having the entire media apparatus on your side will not make Climatechangeology more prestigious or believable, in fact it would make it seem more cultish and totalitarian even if its factual basis becomes undeniable. People don't like totalitarianism and implications of belief in climatechangeology is allowing totalitarian control as end-goal.