I happened on a blog post which denies the reality of man-made global warming. Unlike most such posts, it actually presents reasons for this opinion.
The reasons given are quite familiar to most of us, and certainly not valid. For instance, #1 is the “CO2 lags temperature during ice ages” canard. But in spite of the litany of old, tired long-debunked arguments, it seems to me entirely possible that this person might be amenable to reason. Which makes me wonder … could we change her mind? So I wonder whether or not there’s merit in commenting there, in order to set the record straight.
If any of you choose to do so, I have some suggestions. First, be polite and professional, since the goal is not to tear down her arguments (too easy!) but to change her mind.
Second, rather than attacking all the false arguments at once, approach them one at a time. It’s probably best to start with #1. Another suggestion: don’t let her change the subject from #1 to some other point just because #1 gets “too hot” for her to handle. If you present a potent argument, then either she can decide that you’re correct and that #1 is not a valid objection to man-made global warming and say so, or she should present further evidence to bolster that particular argument. Only when #1 is thoroughly addressed is it a good idea to move on to #2.
Addressing the points one at a time, it will take quite a while to get through the entire list. But it just might manage to change someone’s mind. I don’t really have the time to spare, but for some readers it might be a good exercise in persuasive argument. What do you think — is it worth a try?