In 20 years there will still be a metric ton of denier idiots. Possibly not the majority but still a giant amount of people. In 40 years I would agree.
Also they're the ones to blame for the 90s.
the 90s were great tho
samurai pizza cats and Nirvana and Winona Ryder, what more can a man ask for
I AM NO SLAVE TO NOSTALGIA
when the readings reported from the Mauna Loa Observatory are understood to be imperative global news we'll be flirting with reasonable priorities
This article has too many words for the average reader, but it's worth the time:
http://www.politico.com/story/2017/0...losophy-239669
If you don't want to spend the time, tl;dr:
It turns out the Republicans who wrote and enacted the majority of the EPA's landmark legislation are still alive and vehemently disagree with Scott Pruitt's re-imagining of the agency's purpose.
Byrth, do you have readable rebuttal material for my mother who believes climate change is hogwash and we can't do anything about it? She's 67, , so keep that in mind.
Peer reviewed research with abstracts or summaries readable by the non-technical would be appreciated. I could look it up but I know you probably have most of that information at your fingertips.
If there was an article you could show to a climate change denier to change their outlook on the issue, it wouldn't be the problem that it is.
Unfortunately, the best way to convince each person varies and I can't really guess what it would be for her. Republicans made it part of their voters' identity back when they were bankrolled by domestic & foreign oil producers. Asking hardcore Republicans to believe in climate change is also asking them to:
1) Admit that they've been wrong for ~20 years.
2) Admit that their recalcitrance contributed to the problems that will cause global suffering for thousands of years.
3) Admit that the way they, their parents, their grandparents, and everyone they know lived ultimately created the current ecosystem-threatening disaster known colloquially as "global warming."
Facts are almost certainly not the issue. Minor corrections aside, the "hockey stick" graph linked in the OP is consensus and has been for almost two decades. Showing it to someone and explaining what the lines mean should be the only thing you need to do in order to convince them. The problem is in the other things you're asking them to do. Even if she sees the facts, why would a 67 year old woman admit to it?
only way that seems to sometimes work is to trick people into using logic and reason to come to the conclusion themselves. you can't feed them the facts and tell them what it means. you gotta trick them into coming to that end themselves, because instead of being told by someone a third of their age what's real or not, it's instead "their" idea that global warming is real.
Idk maybe send them on a trip around the world to areas strongly affected by the phenomenon like the mediterranean area.
Also worth mentioning that global warming is a misnomer and climate chamge is more accurate. You cam see the effects right here in the US. All these severe storms, "storm of the century" every other year or so, winter starting later and later and having less consistent snowcover. Im 29 and ive noticed these changes within my lifetime. Ask if she remembers white christmases when she was a kid. Hardly ever happens now, and if it does it melts away again in a week.
If anyone wants to take a deep read into what our kids are going to be facing, have at it:
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer...or-humans.html
I'm p stoked for the end of civilization tbh
I really just need to visit like 4-5 more places before things go totally tits up. 5 years tops.