Thanksgiving dinner is a cherished American tradition where gratitude is served with a side of stuffing and mashed potatoes and, sometimes, a simmering debate with your pilgrim hat-wearing uncle over whether climate change is a hoax or an existential threat to humanity and the planet.

The stakes have never been higher: 2024 is on target to shatter global temperature records, with the entire planet experiencing its hottest year on record. This year will also likely be the first to breach the dreaded 1.5-degree Celsius threshold (2.7F), the accumulative global temperature rise since before the Industrial Revolution.

Scientists believe the symbolic target is when extreme weather like hurricanes, drought, floods, and wildfires will become more frequent, unpredictable, and dangerous. They also predict the breach will push humanity past irreversible tipping points that will change weather patterns, endanger species and ecosystems, and place our food and water systems at severe risk.

The impacts are impossible to ignore. In 2024, climate-related disasters cost the United States more than $61.1 billion in the first ten months alone, with 24 separate billion-dollar weather events—a new record. Since 1980, the U.S. has experienced 400 disasters costing over $1 billion (inflation-adjusted), events costing $2.785 trillion, according to federal records. Over 80% of those costs have occurred since 2010.

Navigating these conversations can feel like descending into Dante’s Inferno: Uncle Joe’s hot takes on climate denial, your dad’s fiery defense of fossil fuels, and Aunt Karen’s scorching disdain for electric cars. Fear not, intrepid dinner guest—there’s a way to make it through with your dignity and to-go dessert intact.

Climate communication experts recommend approaching these conversations with empathy and evidence.

A 2023 Climate Access roundtable offers some easy-to-remember and respectful tips you should try to use even if someone flicks cranberry sauce at you while pointing out that fossil fuels powered the Industrial Revolution, and you should be grateful. The key: Stay focused on facts, even when emotions run high.

“Engage loved ones by listening first,” says panelist Arunima Krishna, an associate professor at Boston University, geologist and science writer Karin Kirk, and moderator and Climate Access deputy director Meredith Herr. “Listen to what folks are saying and what pieces of misinformation they’ve been exposed to. This is crucial because there are so many different pieces of misinformation that are being targeted to various groups across the country and the world.”

The experts recommend sharing personal experiences and highlighting community successes. Ask thoughtful questions about others’ perspectives while questioning their sources. Try to meet them where there’s likely to be some agreement, such as ensuring clean air, water, and cheaper energy.

You may have to abandon the conversation if you’re talking with someone who doesn’t care about those essential elements of human survival. If you need to create a diversion, pretend to choke on your food or state loudly that the turkey is undercooked. Both are highly effective.

Of course, all this civility can be difficult if you’re outnumbered by people unwilling to engage you respectfully.

“You are also not obligated to remain in the conversation,” explains a climate change discussion guide written by various environmental academics and advocates for the Yale Center for Environmental Communication, who also suggest trying to encourage your family and friends to shift to a plant-based diet, flying and driving less, and becoming activists.

Okay.

Sometimes, usually because of wine, you have to confront the swirling chaos of denial and misinformation head-on. But you’ll need a strategy as layered as Dante’s descent into the circles of hell.

Here is a selection of responses to climate change denial claims you might hear across the Thanksgiving table, rated from Gluttony (lighthearted) to Wrath (direct) and if you’re feeling really spicy, Treachery (sharp and sarcastic).

Choose your path wisely.

“Climate change is natural; it’s been happening for millions of years.”

Gluttony: Are you sure? While the climate has changed in the past, the current rate is way faster than anything natural—hundreds of times faster. Doesn’t that seem unusual and worrying to you?

Wrath: The climate has always changed, but those changes used to happen over hundreds of thousands or millions of years. What we’re seeing now is unprecedented in speed and caused by human activities like burning fossil fuels. Natural? Not likely.

Treachery: If you think humans pumping billions of tons of CO2 into the air every year isn’t a factor, you’re essentially saying you don’t understand even high school-level science. Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas that lets sunlight enter Earth’s atmosphere but traps heat that tries to escape into space. It’s like putting a blanket over the planet.

Bonus: CO2 does help plants grow, but too much of it causes drought, crop failures, and extreme weather caused by trapped heat. In those conditions, plants don’t do well.

“Scientists don’t even agree on climate change.”

Gluttony: About 97% of climate scientists agree humans are causing climate change. Doesn’t that sound like a pretty solid consensus?

Wrath: That’s just wrong. The overwhelming majority of climate experts agree on the human impact of climate change based on mountains of independent evidence. Pretending otherwise ignores reality.

Treachery: If you think 3% of fringe scientists outweighs 97% of experts, let me guess: you’d take medical advice from YouTubers over your doctor, too? That’s next-level denial.

“Humans can’t change the climate—it’s too big.”

Gluttony: Do you really think that? Humans have increased CO2 levels by over 50% since the Industrial Revolution. It has been measured.

Wrath: Nah. Human activities like burning fossil fuels and deforestation drive massive changes, from higher temperatures to melting glaciers and rising sea levels. Just look at the data—it’s undeniable.

Treachery: Saying humans can’t affect the climate is like saying a match can’t start a forest fire. It only takes a little spark—and humans have been torching this planet for centuries. Our weather systems are delicate. About 90% of tropical storms develop in 79-degree water or higher. Freshwater boils at 212 degrees but not at 210 degrees. It freezes at 32 degrees but is still water at 31 degrees. Your body temperature is 98 degrees. But at 100 degrees, you have a low-grade fever. Another one or two degrees over that, you’re sick.

Given the billions of humans using energy and cars burning fuel, I’d say we make a huge difference.

“We can’t rely on renewables—they’re too expensive and the sun doesn’t shine at night.”

Gluttony: In many places, solar and wind are now cheaper than coal and gas. Doesn’t that make them worth considering for cheaper energy bills?

Wrath: That’s outdated thinking. Renewables are increasingly cost-competitive, reliable, and getting cheaper. As battery storage and grid technology advances, capturing energy for days when the wind isn’t blowing and the sun isn’t shining will be much easier. Besides, fossil fuels are the real economic drag.

Treachery: So you’re saying we should stick with expensive, polluting energy that’s running out? That’s like refusing a smartphone because rotary phones were acceptable in the 1950s.

“Green energy policies will ruin the economy and cost jobs.”

Gluttony: I’m pretty sure renewables create more jobs than fossil fuels, especially in solar and wind. Wouldn’t that help the economy?

Wrath: Actually, green energy is already creating thousands of jobs in manufacturing, installation, and maintenance. The fossil fuel industry is shrinking—it’s the economy that’s moving forward.

Treachery: If clinging to dying industries is your smart policy idea, why not bring back VHS tapes and typewriters while you’re at it? Jobs in renewables are the future. And guess what? Elon Musk agrees.

“Electric cars are just as bad as regular cars because of the materials and energy they use.”

Gluttony: That’s interesting. I thought electric cars, even with current energy grids, produce fewer emissions over their lifetimes than gas cars. Aren’t they at least a step in the right direction while we improve energy sources?

Wrath: Actually, studies show electric cars are significantly cleaner over their lifespan, even accounting for material sourcing and electricity from coal. Plus, there’s ongoing work to improve battery recycling and sourcing practices, which is more than can be said for fossil fuel cars.

Treachery: Are you telling me that your solution is to stick with gas cars forever, which burn fuel every single mile? They pollute children’s lungs as they pass schools. They endanger the health of entire neighborhoods, like those next to interstates and ports. That’s like saying eating fast food is fine because salads sometimes come in plastic containers. If we wait for perfection, nothing will change. Do you think the printing press or the first personal computers were perfect? People didn’t want them. They changed the world.