What evidence would be required to convince a believer that man cannot effect the climate?
January 1st, 2010 | 
Author: Is there any scientific evidence that could be presented to a global warming believer that would change their minds?
What kind of evidence would be needed to show that believers that the climate always changes, if it’s not getting warmer the climate is cooling, or if the climate isn’t cooling, then it’s warming, there is no such thing as a static climate.
Or is their faith more like a religious faith where the strength of what you believe in is enough to make it true?
Posted in 
Tags:
I believe it’s deeply held believe that human beings are more powerful than they actually are, and evil. (I know it’s screwed up, but that’s what I see.)
They’re so effected by focusing on the "bad" that I don’t think that they can see the good, or the non impact. To many of them, the USA is 5 hours of sleeping on a jet between New York and Los Angeles. They don’t see the vast amount of emptiness in between.
Each time they make doom predictions. (and there have been a LOT of them for a long time) We’re going to have an ice age because of people, we’re going to have global nuclear war which will cause the earth to turn into an ice cube, Saddam’s oil field fire will completely screw up the world ecology…etc.
A nuclear exchange would throw some dust in the air for a couple of weeks, but over most of the world, it probably wouldn’t be noticed, except for the sudden lack of internet services. We’re simply not that powerful. ( I’ve been to Hiroshima, and when you see the pictures of devastation that were there, it doesn’t put it into perspective. Yes, that city was horribly messed up. but ten miles away from ground zero, there was no effect, unless you were looking at it at the instant it blew up, or that was where your favorite okonomiyaki grill was. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki#Japanese_realization_of_the_bombing)
We could pop off all the nukes and the radiation would suck – civilization would end, but the climate wouldn’t be thrown off balance.
not an answer, but a welcome back DR Jello !
Let the fracas begin!
(1) I think "cannot" is strong – clearly a nuclear war would dramatically affect climate.
(2) There’s a big difference between "not getting warmer" and "cooling." Overall, the temps rose during the 1990s and have pretty much held up. It cooled between 2005 and 2008 but 2009 is shaping up to make up some of that cooling – - – so overall, if we compared to where we left off at the end of the 1990s, we’re pretty flat. CO2 levels have continued to rise, but sunspot activity is low. It would appear that both "sides" have at times dramatically overstated their case. On some level CO2 has an effect, just like sunspots have an effect. But we’re neither headed for the next ice age nor about to face triple digit Septembers or even Augusts or Julys in Caribou, Maine. The atmosphere is pretty darned big, and so are the oceans. We should focus on real challenges like cleaning up the plastic islands in the middle of the ocean. If we’re concerned about CO2, converting to nuclear is the only answer we have that can make a real impact, since the materials used to make electric cars are far less abundant than the oil saved by building and driving them.
If someone could PROVE that Physics was a FRAUD ,and that the Earth is FLAT,and that the Sun actually ORBITS the Earth, I would reconsider the already proven Science of Climate Change from the effects of AGW.
"What kind of evidence would be needed to show that believers that the climate always changes"
Well Doctor, I think the climate scientists already know this. But the fact that it always changes does not mean every change is natural. Forests always catch on fire naturally. Does that mean man can’t start forests fires?
"Or is their faith more like a religious faith where the strength of what you believe in is enough to make it true?"
Faith? You tell me–who are the only ones posting sources on this forum and using science? You never see people like jim z and yourself post links to peer reviewed papers, but people like Dana and Dawei and Keith do it almost invariably. I’m afraid you’re the one, my friend, who relies purely on faith.
There is no argument that will convince them. They have chosen this belief and there is nothing you can say that will change them. It is human nature and also their right.
I was thinking of an alternative approach and came up with this idea. Instead of spinning our wheels about global warming why not apply that energy to something that we could fix. Google <Salton Sea New River>. The wiki hit is pretty good to get you started. Is this a disgusting problem or what? Now here is something that could be improved.
And still I doubt the global warmers would care. Their identity has become one with global warming. It is what they are and all they will ever be. Probably, and this is a guess, arguing with them most likely acts as a motivator for them to stay the same.
Actually your last sentence in ur question sums it up pretty well. with one exception. Religious faith is a free and open choice and no one should deny this to anyone. It is only when they try to force it on others that it becomes unworthy of humans. The same with the global warmers, believe it if you want but don’t be someone else’s agent unknowingly.
To say that man does not effect the climate is absurd.
climate changes its true
but at the same time the earth is getting warmer and warmer due to emission of harmful gases. Thats y we have to be aware.
Man can effect the climate. If man shoots off all its 20,000 nukes they can turn earth into a dead earth.
Have you ever been able to reason a LDS or Watchtower missionary away from their evangelism activities to something more scientific and sensible. If not you will never be able to move an AGW believer to a scientific appreciation of the world and how it really works. For instance their belief that that adding co2 to water makes it acidic when a dry powdered form of co2 known as sodium carbonate is sold for swimming pool maintenance as a pH increaser. In other words various dry powdered forms of co2 are marketed world wide as antacids and pH increasers so how can they make water or anything else acidic. In fact after a long session of dealing with warmers I frequently take a spoonful of baking soda (c02 sodium bicarbonate) to ease the stomach acidity that come from dealing with ignorant acidic individuals. Maybe we should get their doctors to prescribe a diet supplement of co2 to reduce their public acidity and restore sensibility and reason to the discussion here, but at least one individual is so radically acidic he will probably die shortly of cancer unless he consumes a whole lot of co2 to ease his severe acidity.
I suggest promoting solutions that are way outside of their comfort zones, like cutting meat and dairy out of their diets. Force them to make moral choices that make them uncomfortable. Most people talk a big game, but they are unwilling to live the life they preach. Give them the tools to see their own hypocrisy.
"In a 2006 report, the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) concluded that worldwide livestock farming generates 18% of the planet’s greenhouse gas emissions — by comparison, all the world’s cars, trains, planes and boats account for a combined 13% of greenhouse gas emissions."
No evidence! just cut off the funding and they’ll have no reason to lie anymore!