what should you say?

What should you say when someone starts talking about how humans are causing global warming?

Believe it or not, global warming or the enviro-activists' latest buzzwords "climate change", aren't fodder for most people's daily coffee chats. Most “real” people talk about current events, sports, the weather, what’s happening with the kids, what’s happening at work and (depending on the company) that hot little darling who works down the hall. Climate change is occasionally mentioned like a punch line after a comment on the weather.

If someone is talking about how humans are responsible for climate change, they’re doing so for a reason. In order to know how to respond properly, you need to determine what that reason is and that could be tricky. You could just ask them but if their reason is something less than honest, they’ll obfuscate.

Before you start asking questions, listen to the person for a few moments. Most of the time, clues to their motivation will be evident. For the sake of brevity, I will break these motivations down into loose categories.

If they’re talking about the evils of capitalism, corporations and how the governments are being controlled by Big Business, you’ve found their motivation. You’re listening to either an anti-globalization proponent, a socialist or a communist... or all of the above. While some would recommend walking away, I’m a great believer in freedom of speech. I’ll get to the “how to respond” part in a few minutes.

If they’re talking about how the Conservatives are destroying Canada’s international reputation by failing to live up to our obligations under the Kyoto Protocol, you’re listening to a Liberal. The first thing to do is to make sure you know where your wallet is and then watch their hands.

If they’re talking about the destruction of the forests, how many species are dying daily and other sensationalist but inaccurate claims, you’re listening to an enviro-activist.

These categories are pretty loose. Some folks might actually fit into all three groups. If they do, the chances of having an intelligent debate with them is slim to nil. In that rare case, I would suggest walking away quickly.

If the person is talking about capitalism, ask them if they have a job or if their friends have jobs. Don’t listen to the answer. It’s immaterial; these are rhetorical questions. Ask a second and a third question... if they think most people want to have a job; if most people want to be able to put food on their tables and clothes on their backs. Usually by this time, they will have figured out that the questions are rhetorical and they’ll begin protesting. Press on... ask them how they propose to feed the world if no-one has jobs.... and listen to the answer. They either won’t have one or they’ll start talking about how the government or the unions (or both) should control wages and jobs. If they don’t answer, you can walk away. If they talk about authoritarian regimes, remind them that both socialism and communism have failed miserably whenever attempted as a form of government. Chances are you won’t convince them but perhaps you’ll plant a seed.

If they’re talking Liberalese, ask them how the Kyoto Protocol works. Chances are they’ll start by try defining Kyoto as an international agreement, sponsored by the UN, etc etc. If so, press them for details of what the Protocol means and the actual mechanisms of how Kyoto will deal with noncompliance. When they start sputtering, tell them that the Liberals really screwed Canada over by signing a blank cheque with no intention of fulfilling the obligation... and if they were really concerned about Canada’s reputation, they should make certain not to vote Liberal in the future. Chances are you won’t convince them but perhaps you’ll plant a seed. Then check your wallet before walking away.

If they’re talking Earth First, ask them if there has been climate change in the past (hint: there has). Ask them how many cars were running during the last major global warming episode (hint: none). Ask them how global warming occurred if there were no humans generating greenhouse gases. Chances are the answer will be something like climate change is a natural process but human activity has greatly affected and accelerated that process. Ask them what they’re using to compare since history is a little vague on temperatures. If they claim to be using statistical analysis to model past temperatures, ask what happens if statistics are based on flawed assumptions (hint: stats become meaningless) and what type of future projections would result if based on meaningless stats. Chances are you won’t convince them but perhaps you’ll plant a seed.

As sad as it may seem, chances are you won't convince any of these three groups to change their minds about climate change but here's the most important point: most people don't belong to any of these three groups but they might be influenced by the conversation. If you allow someone who isn't telling the truth about climate change to continue unchecked, you're doing those listening a disservice.

You might notice I haven’t included a category for how to respond to conservatives. You might find them talking about how global warming is just the latest “crisis” the leftists invented by the unscrupulous to catch the fickle attention of the feeble-minded. If you need guidance in that conversation, why are you reading my blog?

Finally, the best way to be prepared to respond is to educate yourself about climate change and the environment. Climate change is a natural process and it will continue happening regardless of whether we stop generating GHGs or not. That’s not to say we don’t have an effect on Mother Earth but it’s much less than they would have you believe, especially when it comes to the planet's temperature. Reputable climatologists aren’t part of the screaming hordes trying to whip the population into a pro-Kyoto frenzy. You should not be either.

-Mac