Help! I must out debate my husband: topic 'Global Warming'

[Lady_of_the_Lake]

I’m in the midst of an epic battle with my husband about the argument of doom, yes ‘Global Warming’.

Granted, I try not to have in depth political discussions with him at all as it’ll just end in disappointment and perhaps a decrease in our sex life. Both are to be avoided. And, I know we are not at all eye to eye couple on most topics, he mocks me for watching *Naruto * and I mock him for liking Dean Koontz.

However, he has been increasingly opinionated and political about the fact that global warming is a myth brought about by environmental wacko’s ever since he read Michael Crichton’s State of Fear. This offends me as I consider Michael Crichton to be a substandard version of Steven King who uses pseudo-science instead of horror. (but without the gift for character development.)

Last night he was watching the science channel about ‘M Theory’ which somehow delved into his talking smack about global warming….again. It’s on.

But…I am woefully unprepared to argue. It just seems the sensible thing to be careful about the environment, but I have no facts, no cites, no direction.

I have been scouring my main source for information: the internet. I found some useful links listed in wikepedia, which was helpful: I sent it on to him with my thoughts on each section.
My site: (Wikepedia: Scientific consensus on climate change - Wikipedia)

His site:

Global Warming:A Chilling Perspective

I refuted as best I could (really, the article has few cites for its arguments and relies on assumption and misdirection), as well as sent him to: http://info-pollution.com/chill.htm.

However, I know that an opinion article is not a good answer to an opinion article.

He’s responded with:
Fine, don’t read the words. Pictures are better. Deny those FACTS.
(He linked the graphs from his listed site above and pasted the facts below)
FUN FACTS about CARBON DIOXIDE
-Of the 186 billion tons of CO2 that enter earth’s atmosphere each year from all sources, only 6 billion tons are from human activity. Approximately 90 billion tons come from biologic activity in earth’s oceans and another 90 billion tons from such sources as volcanoes and decaying land plants.
-At 368 parts per million CO2 is a minor constituent of earth’s atmosphere-- less than 4/100ths of 1% of all gases present. Compared to former geologic times, earth’s current atmosphere is CO2- impoverished.
-CO2 is odorless, colorless, and tasteless. Plants absorb CO2 and emit oxygen as a waste product. Humans and animals breathe oxygen and emit CO2 as a waste product. Carbon dioxide is a nutrient, not a pollutant, and all life-- plants and animals alike-- benefit from more of it. All life on earth is carbon-based and CO2 is an essential ingredient. When plant-growers want to stimulate plant growth, they introduce more carbon dioxide.
-CO2 that goes into the atmosphere does not stay there but is continually recycled by terrestrial plant life and earth’s oceans-- the great retirement home for most terrestrial carbon dioxide.

My call to you Dopers:

1. I’m not a scientist! How do I go about answering this challenge? I look at the graphs and go ‘huh’? And then I look at the ‘fun facts’ and I see that they are…off…but don’t know how to get that across.

2. Are there any good, informative places to go for lazy people who are not scientists that can help us learn more on this issue? I do want to be more educated, to have facts to counter his facts. I’m willing to print them out and put them in a binder to carry with me to pull out at family gatherings (seriously!) grin to be ready when he starts talking smack again.

3. I’ve been digging on Crichton’s book too, but any helpful information is much appreciated!

Thanks!
Lady of the Lake

P.S. You are not helping me cause the death of our marriage. Scouts honor. wink

[Rigamarole]

Well, here’s a fact - the high today in Los Angeles is 84° F. And it’s nearly mid-friggin’-January. I feel pretty warm.

[BMalion]

You are going about this debate all wrong.
YOU: “If you don’t agree with my stance on global warming, you will never see me naked again.”

HIM: “You’re absolutely right, dear.”

Seriously, ask him to read Jared Diamond’s “Collapse, How Societies Choose To Fail or Succeed.”

[Lady_of_the_Lake]

@Rigamarole

Well, here’s a fact - the high today in Los Angeles is 84° F. And it’s nearly mid-friggin’-January. I feel pretty warm.

Umm…okay…

My sister lives in LA too. likes it!

But, seriously, if this is the wrong forum, that’s fine - please feel free to move it.
Or if I’m not supposed to ask for help like this - that’s fine too - feel free to delete my post. I’m willing to do the work, but feel overwhelmed and confused and am looking for some direction.

[Lady_of_the_Lake]

@BMalion

You are going about this debate all wrong.
YOU: “If you don’t agree with my stance on global warming, you will never see me naked again.”

HIM: “You’re absolutely right, dear.”

Seriously, ask him to read Jared Diamond’s “Collapse, How Societies Choose To Fail or Succeed.”

(That punishes us both though!)

The book looks interesting! I’ve ordered it from amazon.com and will read it.

Heck, I’ll even read State of Fear with an open of mind as a trade to get him to read it if it’s informative!

[Lamar_Mundane]

@Rigamarole

Well, here’s a fact - the high today in Los Angeles is 84° F. And it’s nearly mid-friggin’-January. I feel pretty warm.

This is my biggest pet peeve right now, no matter which side uses it. The fact that I have three feet of snow in my yard and that I likely will not see temperatures above 20 degrees for a week starting Thursday means nothing about global warming.

Anyway…

A good place to start when talking with people who believe it is a “myth” or a “hoax” is to ask them why they think the vast majority of scientists involved in this research would get together on this. What possible benefit is there to falsifying something like this? There is no money to be made by having this opinion. Just the contrary is true.

[Sal_Ammoniac]

You know, quite frankly, the best response you can make is “yes, dear.” I don’t think your husband is actually interested in looking at the for-and-against. He’s made up his mind to be provocative, and I’m not sure that he can be swayed. The arguments he cites are so feeble that if he’s prepared to believe them, there’s really no use talking with him about it.

[Lady_of_the_Lake]

@Lamar Mundane

A good place to start when talking with people who believe it is a “myth” or a “hoax” is to ask them why they think the vast majority of scientists involved in this research would get together on this. What possible benefit is there to falsifying something like this? There is no money to be made by having this opinion. Just the contrary is true.

I’m going to ask this question, along with some handy sites!

[Voyager]

@Lady of the Lake

Fine, don’t read the words. Pictures are better. Deny those FACTS.
(He linked the graphs from his listed site above and pasted the facts below)
FUN FACTS about CARBON DIOXIDE
-Of the 186 billion tons of CO2 that enter earth’s atmosphere each year from all sources, only 6 billion tons are from human activity. Approximately 90 billion tons come from biologic activity in earth’s oceans and another 90 billion tons from such sources as volcanoes and decaying land plants.

These are not scientific responses, but responses that might be better for you - showing the absurdity of these points.

For this one: It is not the absolute total, it is that the additional CO2 puts the atmosphere out of balance. The average depth of the sea is what - a mile? Raising the sea level 100 feet would be a trivial increment, but would have a big impact on us.

-At 368 parts per million CO2 is a minor constituent of earth’s atmosphere-- less than 4/100ths of 1% of all gases present. Compared to former geologic times, earth’s current atmosphere is CO2- impoverished.

In geologic time the center of the US was under water. Is that what he wants? No one is saying that global warming will kill us all - just that it will have a major impact that is not going to be pleasant.

-CO2 is odorless, colorless, and tasteless. Plants absorb CO2 and emit oxygen as a waste product. Humans and animals breathe oxygen and emit CO2 as a waste product. Carbon dioxide is a nutrient, not a pollutant, and all life-- plants and animals alike-- benefit from more of it. All life on earth is carbon-based and CO2 is an essential ingredient. When plant-growers want to stimulate plant growth, they introduce more carbon dioxide.

It is not necessarily true that more of a good thing is good. Anyhow, the problem is not that mor CO2 will directly hurt us - just the side effects of more CO2, in the greenhouse effect.

-CO2 that goes into the atmosphere does not stay there but is continually recycled by terrestrial plant life and earth’s oceans-- the great retirement home for most terrestrial carbon dioxide.

But the retirement home is getting full. Does he know the carrying capacity of plant life and the ocean - especially when they’re cutting down the rain forests?

How does he feel about creationism. At this point the consensus of scientists on global warming is about the same as the consensus of scientists on evolution. Yeah, there are a few dissenters, but not a significant number. Crichton, trained as a medical doctor hardly counts as an authority.

[Kalhoun]

I am not a scientist, so I would have a difficult time refuting numbers someone threw at me. Have him watch Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth. It spells it out in simple terms. It’s based on good science. He knows what he’s talking about (or so I hear). It’s a very interesting film.

[Lady_of_the_Lake]

@Sal Ammoniac

You know, quite frankly, the best response you can make is “yes, dear.” I don’t think your husband is actually interested in looking at the for-and-against. He’s made up his mind to be provocative, and I’m not sure that he can be swayed. The arguments he cites are so feeble that if he’s prepared to believe them, there’s really no use talking with him about it.

I’ll feel like I gave in and he won. Never!

The odd thing is that he believes we should have environmental controls.

[What_Exit]

The current temperatures are no proof of Global Warming. By the way, there really is no debate about Global Warming, the debate is whether it is being caused by human activities.

However, looking at the change in temperature trends along side the level of CO[sub]2[/sub] in the air for the last 1000 years is probably the most convincing argument you can present.

If you want lots of good information, search for posts by are own jshore, he does a remarkable job in every Global warming debate calmly presenting the facts that lead most scientist to support Anthropomorphic Global Warming.

Rent An Inconvenient Truth (2006) by Al Gore and watch it with a pot of coffee going. It is every bit as boring as he usually is, but it is very detailed.

Order a back Copy of the Scientific America from September 2006. . The main article is A Climate Repair Manual
Make a good advanced search in GD and you should find a lot of information.

Jim

[tdn]

@What Exit?

Rent An Inconvenient Truth (2006) by Al Gore and watch it with a pot of coffee going. It is every bit as boring as he usually is, but it is very detailed.

I found it quite entertaining, myself.

One thing you could ask him is if we should simply assume that things are going to be OK and just forget about it, or do the research and find out for sure. If he answers as I predict he will, remind him that ignorance is not only not bliss, but foolhardy.

[Sal_Ammoniac]

@Lady of the Lake

I’ll feel like I gave in and he won. Never!

Hardly… he’ll wonder what you’re up to!

[What_Exit]

@tdn

I found it quite entertaining, myself.

I am glad you did, hopefully **Lady of the Lake ** will also.

I was hoping to hear more about solutions, I was already aware of most of the data he presented so maybe it was more boring for me. It felt like he spent most of the time trying to prove his point and only a very short time addressing solutions.

It should be perfect for trying to prove the case for Anthropomorphic Global Warming.

Jim

[Lady_of_the_Lake]

Voyager,
I used two of your comments, citing you as the giver of said comments!) (For the others, I had similar arguments to yours in place, which surprised me!)

**Kalhoun, **
I had been planning on watching that, thank you for the suggestion!

What Exit?,
I will follow your advice! I have been reading links from Wikipedia to get better acquainted with the topic and feel that I’m developing a better grasp - it’s not as foggy as it had been. Truthfully, it’s fascinating! (though this is perhaps because I have a burning desire to win)

I will also search in Great Debates!

[saoirse]

@What Exit?

It should be perfect for trying to prove the case for Anthropomorphic Global Warming.

Jim

I think you mean anthropocentric.

[What_Exit]

@saoirse

I think you mean anthropocentric.

Damn, you are correct, I am parroting a phrase I saw used.

Thank you,
Jim

[saoirse]

@What Exit?

Damn, you are correct, I am parroting a phrase I saw used.

Thank you,
Jim

Anthropomorphic global warming would probably involve the Heat Miser.

[BlueKangaroo]

Actually, I’m pretty sure it’s anthropogenic.

Roughly, anthropomorphic would be to give it human shape, anthropocentric would mean that it’s human-centered, but anthropogenic means that it’s genesis or creation is by human means.

At least, that’s how I’ve heard it, in my various Biology classes.