I need to find a very effective way to prove that anthropogenic climate change is real and unmitigated will eventually have very severe consequences.

I am trying to boil the proof of significant anthropogenic global warming down to its most irrefutable basic essence much more convincingly and succinctly than ever before.

It is not nearly good enough that we explain this well enough that any reasonable person would agree. We have to explain so well that even the totally unreasonable (yet honest) would understand and agree.

We must explain this so convincingly that any disagreement looks ridiculously foolish to everyone besides liars and psychotics.

Disagreement must look like a person that just got smashed in the face with a pie denying that there ever was a pie.

We are deprogramming the brainwashed

  • $\begingroup$ I understand you. I figth against denialists on national newspapapers. It is a hard battle, they use debate technics and some of them trick you easily and you finish by looking the stupid. I have used the site sometimes to link them to Q&A on stack that leaves clear there is such a global warming. I am not discouraging you to ask, but climate-change tag has 400 post you can link. You may fall in duplicates if you ask many questions about the same topic. $\endgroup$ – user18261 Nov 25 '19 at 9:22
  • $\begingroup$ @Universal_learner If you look you will see that I already asked a bunch of questions that the denier liars cannot answer without looking foolish. People keep asking me why I am asking these same sort of questions over and over. The answer is that these questions must be asked so that even a totally unreasonable person will see the truth in such a way that denial looks as foolish as someone that just got smashed in the face with a pie denying that there was a pie. $\endgroup$ – polcott Nov 25 '19 at 15:16
  • $\begingroup$ At Spain they atack the sweeden teen Greta and they mix it with "they are feminists and comunists" no matter the evidence you show them. But I agree fake news as important as "cc is not happenning" should be figthed with true info, as for every fake new. $\endgroup$ – user18261 Nov 25 '19 at 18:38
  • $\begingroup$ @Universal_learner We must realize that most everyone that we encounter on social media are either concerned believers or liar deniers. Actual climate change skeptics don't talk about these things on social media because there are sufficiently convinced that it is not worth their time. Since the people that we encounter are not a representative sample of actual skeptics the chances of convincing actual skeptics are much higher than they seem to be. $\endgroup$ – polcott Nov 25 '19 at 19:01
  • $\begingroup$ At Spain the situation is VOX, extreme rigth, got 15% of votes. They are very active on nets. I am a commenter and reader of press. We are wondering if that VOX new partie has employers on social media. I don't know why but yes, they talk about CC a lot on social media saying it is fake. Their consistently atack socialist gouvernement, Greta Thunberg etc and their arguments are like "socialist president flies in plane", "green energy is a business from Rockefeller companies", and if you show them evidences their bots downvote your comments. $\endgroup$ – user18261 Nov 25 '19 at 19:24
  • $\begingroup$ solution is education. fortunately the young people don't use to deny cc $\endgroup$ – user18261 Nov 25 '19 at 19:45
  • $\begingroup$ Deniers will keep asking question after question, drawing you into the quagmire of answering them. What you want to do has been done by others already and should suffice. After a certain point going into their "yes but" questions no longer serves any purpose. I suggest spending your energy on moving forward instead of fighting the backward pull. My answer to people who obviously have a denier agenda is "Fine, we'll do it without you". $\endgroup$ – Jan Doggen Dec 15 '19 at 16:50
  • $\begingroup$ @Jan Doggen My aim to to formulate such a concise proof of objectively alarming anthropogenic climate change that every possible counter-argument is already fully addressed in this concise proof. $\endgroup$ – polcott Dec 16 '19 at 20:39
  • $\begingroup$ @Jan Doggen That a single degree of temperature anomaly seems to have shifted the whole (Summer global temperature) bell curve two standard deviations to the right seems to provide significant evidence that the BAU 5C by 2100 would likely produce 60C heats waves that kill everything in its path. giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/hansen_17 $\endgroup$ – polcott Dec 16 '19 at 20:44
  • $\begingroup$ I'm voting to close this question as off-topic because while Stack Exchange provides an educational benefit to the public, we do not use the site to change the public's view in any specific way. So this meta question is not about a proper use of the site. $\endgroup$ – uhoh Dec 20 '19 at 1:20
  • $\begingroup$ @uhoh It seems to me that if we don't change the public's view on this issue there may not be any public with any view within 100 years. When the truth fights against billion dollar disinformation teams the truth loses. smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/… $\endgroup$ – polcott Dec 20 '19 at 5:32
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @polcott I understand and climate change and resistance to addressing are a pair of problems of epic proportions. But derailing sources of objective, reliable information to make a point is not the solution. Let Stack Exchange be Stack Exchange. $\endgroup$ – uhoh Dec 20 '19 at 5:35
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ There is no way to counter a firm belief with facts. The believer will rather convince the scientific guy. Your question cannot be answered at the moment and i fear your good intentions lead to the contrary, a flurry of unfounded claims. There always is a grey zone in the geosciences, but trying to convey a message is rather political than scientific. And, let me say, i am on your side, @polcott, but being provocative doesn't help. $\endgroup$ – user18411 Dec 20 '19 at 10:39
  • $\begingroup$ @uhoh I am not "derailing sources of objective, reliable information to make a point is not the solution" I am succinctly referencing the key essence of these: "sources of objective, reliable information" to maxmize the effectiveness of these points. Scientists are great at digging up a bunch of facts, and not very good about weaving the most significant essence of these facts into a very compelling action plan. $\endgroup$ – polcott Dec 20 '19 at 16:34
  • $\begingroup$ I didn't say you did. I just meant that using SE to make a point would do that. It's like putting editorials in encyclopedias. If the audience you'd like to educate happens to come to SE to do some independent research and they find evangelizing, they may get turned off one way or another. This is not a discussion that will go farther here. $\endgroup$ – uhoh Dec 20 '19 at 16:37

Browse other questions tagged .