My father is an extremely intelligent man, and I respect his advice about a lot of things. I'm embarrassed to admit, however, that he's a global warming denier. I've tried to change his mind, but he just doesn't want to listen. How can I get my father to come around on climate change?
-AJ
Your dad isn't the only one who's going to need some serious convincing: The number of Americans who believe global warming is real has fallen from 80 to 72 percent in the past year. This, all before emails from climate scientists at the University of East Anglia were stolen and subsequently leaked, raising questions about the integrity of the scientists' global warming data. Add to that the ensuing "Climategate" frenzy by the cable news talking heads, who often seem more interested in sound bytes than exploring the nuance of any given issue, and the result is a population divided into believers and deniers.
But some think there's more to consider. To understand where your father is coming from, I turned to a family member of mine who is a scientist, environmentalist, and one of the most brilliant people I know. He also happens to be skeptical (his words, not mine) that we fully understand the science of climate. Here's what he had to say:
My conclusion here is not that the prevailing climate change theories are necessarily wrong. But I have always been skeptical that we understand how our planet works to the extent some believe that we do, which is a subtle, but different assertion than saying I do not believe in man-made climate change.... Science of natural phenomenon (chemistry, physics, how the human body works, climate, etc.) is very very complicated.... In every other realm of science we always discover that our earlier models of nature are usually incomplete or wrong at first, and find that continued scientific inquiry improves our models and understanding. Since the science is young, I am skeptical of anyone who claims to understand it fully and with uncanny certitude...
He went on to say that the world should focus on more tangible environmental solutions than creating carbon trading schemes, like stopping factories from dumping waste in our water and developing clean energy technologies that reduce our dependence on oil.
And that's when the light bulb went off: I had wrongly assumed that anyone who doesn't fully embrace the science of global warming must be an anti-environmentalist, throwing McDonald's wrappers out the window of a Hummer on the way to her job at ExxonMobil.
Your dad's probably not that bad, but how can you sway him nonetheless? You could use scare tactics, sending your father photos of drowning polar bears and articles about London being underwater by the year 2100. You could also take the scientific approach, pointing out that leading climatologist Dr. Stephen Schneider has long since debunked his own 1971 theory about global cooling. Neither approach is likely to work. Why? Well, you say your father is an intelligent man, so I'm assuming he knows how to use the internet, just like I do. It's not that he doesn't have access to the information; it's that he either isn't listening, or has already listened and simply doesn't agree.
But I believe there's an environmentalist in all of us -- whether it's the hunter who doesn't want to see forest converted into a shopping mall or the truck driver who thinks his rig runs better on biofuel -- and if we make the issue about climate change and climate change only, we lose the opportunity to involve your father and that other 28 percent in the solutions. So put down the global warming gun for a second and focus on other environmental ills that could bring your father into the fold. Does he love to go to the beach in the summer? Tell him about how our addiction to bottled water is creating a monstrous patch of garbage in the Pacific Ocean twice the size of Texas. Is he worried about swine flu? Talk about how unsanitary conditions in factory farmscan create breeding grounds for pandemic viruses like H1N1.
By focusing on the environment and pollution, rather than just asking him to check a box that says either "yes" or "no" next to climate change, you'll be empowering your dad to make a difference, and here's our little secret: If your father switches to tap water and reduces his meat consumption for the above reasons, he'll also inadvertently be reducing the greenhouse gases that contribute to global warming, whether he believes in it or not (bottling water in the US produces more than 2.5 million tons of CO2 a year; livestock farming is responsible for 18 percent of the world's GHG emissions). It may not be as satisfying as getting your father to jump ship, but what do you care about more: being right or actually making a difference?
If we let people categorize themselves as deniers or believers, then the conversation is over. We can't afford to let the destruction of the environment become a politicized, polarized issue. Mankind's survival is at stake, and we need everyone on board.
Send all your eco-inquiries to Jennifer Grayson at eco.etiquette@gmail.com. Questions may be edited for length and clarity.
Follow Jennifer Grayson on Twitter: www.twitter.com/jennigrayson
David Wild: "Too Darn Hot": My Playlist To Help Heat Things Up At The Copenhagen Climate Summit
I really do believe in the threat of global warming, and in honor of the Copenhagen climate talks, here's my playlist to prove it.
I cannot understand why anybody would want to destroy our nation and their own standard of living for something that does not exist. The science has not been settled as there was no debate. The elite had too much to lose to allow a debate to take place. Just take your damn vaccination and shut up.
Doubt as your friend expressed can be healthy. Doubt can lead you to the truth if applied to the pursuit of more knowledge and understanding. Fear warps our thinking and stops the conversation as near as I can tell. Maybe that innate fear i see in people is some primal force or maybe it's environmental, developed over time. I'm not sure.
What I found can work to change minds is to put a person at ease by first, not blaming them for the problem directly as if they are bad people. Reassuring them that we are all in this together. We all got here together and will get out together and that there are solutions helps.
Some will never even try to understand and they are a small group I think. I generally remain silent when I find myself around that type. I don't want to squander my energy yelling at stones.
www.CoolTheEarth.US/climate-report.php
Well, that's quite an epiphany.
Go Horns
Exactly. One can engage in thoughtful debate on the issue of climate change without making the mistake of boxing up people as either environmentally-responsible savers or polluting, littering wasters. Most people are somewhere on the continuum between.
Of course they and particularly their children, my grandchildren, will be the one's to face the consequences.
I have an open mind on this but I've seen nothing that would make me feel that global warming is real.
Give me some facts and name your sources so that I can contact them.
I'll bet I recieve no facts or data to back them up.
Second, we are at Solar Minimum right now which means that the Sun is generating LESS not more energy.
Thrid, you need to consider the fact that Venus is a twin of Earth but has an atmosphere 90 times as dense as our own.
Surface temps hover around 900 degrees F actually hotter than Mercury.
I'm an armchair enthusiast of the AGW issue. I'm confident I've read through more of the data than most laymen who've already made up their minds. Some of it is indeed conflicting. This is why I've yet to draw a conclusion. That's common sense. Remember, it's not about whether or not the climate changes. It's about what drives climate change.
Notice that Cities are warmer than the surrounding countryside.
The trouble with global warming theory is that there are too many variables. In addition to the greenhouse effect, there are solar, geological, and biological effects that also influence climate. There are also non-greenhouse pollutants that lower the effective SHGC of the atmosphere.
But when you remove all the other variables and consider the simple example of the CO2-filled window, the warming effect of atmospheric CO2 becomes tangible and even obvious.
A confluence of other phenomena may counteract or even overwhelm the greenhouse effect, so there may not be global warming in spite of the warming affect of increased CO2 concentrations.
So temperature is not the best argument for a low-carbon economy.
The best argument is resource conservation -- preserving fossil hydrocarbons for the future.
The second-best argument is that, regardless of whether the climate is changing, the composition of the atmosphere certainly is, as the concentration of CO2 has surged 38% since 1750 after remaining essentially constant for the previous 10,000 years.
We don't have to understand all the dynamics to know that humans are causing this. We don't understand exactly what is going to happen, but it whatever it is, it is going to happen and it is unlikely to be pleasant, or to stabilize until all the factors influencing climate have become roughly stable.
We can be skeptical about the models. We can throw them all out. But we are upsetting the equilibrium of the earth's atmosphere in a major way over a short period of time. That is a recipe for dramatic and volatile change. Even worse, unpredictable change.
We act as if it is good news that the scientists can't really predict the future consequences. It's not. We'd be much better off if we knew precisely what was going to happen, so we could counteract it, defend against the consequences. But it's much too complex for that.
Let us not conclude that since science can't tell us what is going to happen precisely, that we can safely ignore the dire warnings scientists are giving us, which seems to be the gist of the post.
The thicker your atmosphere the warmer it gets.
What isn't clear is the exact course of events this year and the next and whether certain positive feedback mechanisms will kick in and raise the final output substantially.
This is a serious issue and demands thoughtful discourse on the part of all of us, not recitations of mindless right wing talking points.
This is a very complex issue as well. It is not reducible to political platitudes.
There's a lot to consider.
Again, Ms. Grayson, that was a smart post. I mean, who the hell can argue with cleaning our streams and rivers, air, and ending pollution.