I've got about an hour to come up with a reliable, easy to understand source or explanation

[Maraya1969]

that I can print out and give to my climate denier brother before he heads back up north.

I watched a documentary last night, (The brainwashing of my Dad) and they had information something like 24,000 scientists believe in global warming and only 4 do not.

I hate it when I can't provide proof. Can anyone help me with the statistics and perhaps what business the other scientists are in?

Thanks!

[tonyt53]

1. Sad to say, but there is likely nothing you can do or say that will change his mind.

My oldest brother is the same way. Show him the temperatures above the Arctic Circle today as compared to normal averages. Check out what NOAA has to say. Good luck, because you are going to need it.

[think]

2. Here's Nasa's site saying 97% of climate change scientists & 18 scientific organizations

recognize climate change as real. Not sure if that will help but it's probably a good start.

http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

[HassleCat]

3. Yeah. Don't bother.

I agree with the other responses. There is nothing, absolutely nothing, that will convince the deniers. The best you can do is get some of them to support environmental efforts that help create green jobs. Some will go along with that, as long as their precious tax dollars aren't spent.

[Ghost Dog]

4. Of course there is man-made climate change:

It's all part of The Illuminatis' New World Order Plan!

Say that & he might listen to you...

Sorry.

[Canoe52]

5. I've got a whole family like that

Smile, nod your head, change the subject.

My sympathies.

[OKIsItJustMe]

6. Start here

https://www.climate.gov/[center]

[/center][hr]http://climate.nasa.gov/
https://www3.epa.gov/climatechange/basics/
http://whatweknow.aaas.org/[center]http://vimeo.com/88818843[/center][hr]http://nas-sites.org/climate-change/[center]

[/center]

[Maraya1969]

7. What is the difference between the carbon dioxide that we breath out and the stuff that is an

offshoot of burning fossil fuels. (is that carbon fuels?)

[caraher]

8. Chemically, they're identical

The key difference is that, were it not for fossil fuels, the amount of carbon exchanged between the biosphere (including us) and the atmosphere and oceans would be pretty much balance. You eat carbon in your food, breathe it out as CO2, plant life absorbs CO2 and we eat those plants (or animals that eat plants) and the cycle begins anew. Pretty much a "carbon-neutral" process.

But we're digging/pumping out of the ground carbon that had been locked up and putting it in the (thin, tenuous) atmosphere, to the tune of (so far) about a 50% increase over the pre-industrial atmospheric concentration.

[OKIsItJustMe]

9. Fossil fuels do not contain ¹⁴C (a radioactive form of carbon)

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/outreach/isotopes/

… fossil fuels do not contain ¹⁴C. By studying how the concentration of ¹⁴C has changed in the atmosphere, scientists have determined that the atmospheric increase in carbon dioxide is dominated by fossil fuel emissions.

…

¹⁴C is unstable, and over time “decays.” This is how “radiocarbon dating” works, the older a sample is, the less ¹⁴C it will contain. “Fossil fuels” are quite old, so there is no remaining ¹⁴C.

Read more: http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/outreach/isotopes/decay.html