Recently, on a social media platform I won’t name, a well-meaning person summarized in classic form the typical layman’s—and, to be candid, the typical politician’s—case in favor of drastic efforts to reduce manmade global warming. That offers a great opportunity to answer in clear, simple terms that other laymen can use. So, here and in parts two, three, and four, I’ll present his case, and my responses.

To begin with, Bob (not his real name) wrote, “I don’t know any person over 20 years old who doesn’t recognize that the climate has changed dramatically since they were kids. All of my older friends say the change they have seen is dramatic. Regardless of political affiliation, this is our universal experience.”

This is among the easiest points to counter.

First, that climate changes has never been debated. The debate is over the magnitude and consequences of human contribution to climate change.

Second, anecdotal personal memories of past climate and weather are a notoriously bad source of information about them. They are often wrong—or, if not wrong, lack long-term context that would drastically change their significance. I addressed that in a recent blog post explaining why it is that, although many people in the State of Georgia think recent summers have been hotter than those in their memories, they haven’t been. Indeed, they’ve been cooler than the average for the average for 1895–2018.

Next, Bob wrote, “Whether you think climate change is man made or not, I don’t know a single person who likes pollution. Everyone I know loves experiencing the beauty of our planet and thinks it’s a good idea to preserve and conserve what we have. No one wants a mini-continent of plastic in the pacific, pollutants in the air, or the destruction of so many incredible parts of our country—much less the world!”

For my answer, click here.

Featured Photo by NASA on Unsplash