E. May - Monbiot Debate, The Second
Unlike you, I'm no expert on the holocaust but I understand it's an historical fact based on some pretty solid physical evidence. So, if you want to debate against it, go for it but you might look pretty silly.
The work on AGW, however, is still very much a work in progress. AFAIK, nobody has yet come up with a model that accurately maps to reality as we see it. That's why there is a big range between the "best case" and "worst case" scenarios.
And this debate wasn't even on anthropogenic global warming; it was on the question of whether AGW should be our highest priority, which is a bit of an abstraction. So, you can equate it to a debate on the holocaust if you want; I don't see it that way.
You claim this debate was only a "political debate for entertainment" and then further claim "the issue has been set back for years"
How are both of those possible? As "support", you offer the audience poll. Which of your claims does the poll support and how?
What you understand and what a holocaust denier understands are two different things. But you've avoided the question. Do you think it is permissible to debate the holocaust, yes or no? I get the feeling you're attempting to evade answeing.
The work on AGW is not a work in progress, It is occuring and it is measurable. What is open to debate among scientists is the impacts, short, medium, and long term, and few serious climate scientists argue the impacts will be positive.
It doesn't matter what the focus of the debate is. The result is the same. To say you're not arguing whether the holocaust happened but only how many were killed still brings into question the historical fact. Why, for example, would climate change not be our highest priority unless the scientific consensus is incorrect? That seems obvious on the surface.
The fact that climate change is used for political entertainment serves to both undermine the seriousness of the issue while giving validity to the claims of the deniers. That you won't recognize that goes more to your obtuseness than anything else. Others seem to see it quite clearly.
Finally, I would support a public debate between experts in the science and those scientists who represent the deniers,. I believe it would be entirely enlightening and effective.
What I find objectionable is a politician and journalist lending their credibility to cranks and quacks. They should know better. They have made an error in judgment and such errors do set back the cause for political opinion. That much should also be obvious as, otherwise, there'd be no value in holding such public displays if not to influence public opinion.
What you understand and what a holocaust denier understands are two different things. But you've avoided the question. Do you think it is permissible to debate the holocaust, yes or no? I get the feeling you're attempting to evade answeing.
Permissible??? I think that freedom of speech is a fundamental human right. Like all rights, it's balanced by a responsibility to use the freedom in a way that doesn't unduly impinge others freedoms. And like all rights, it has to be subject to reasonable limits, such as hate speech. But the onus shouldn't be on someone to prove why they should be permitted that right, it should be on someone to demonstrate that the exercising of the right has been abused. What is it that is so unique about the holocaust that it alone can't be debated? Or should we pass laws banning debates of all holocausts? As Chomsky put it " It would be a great disservice to the memory of the victims of the Holocaust to adopt one of the basic doctrines of their murderers."
Read that back. It is occurring but it is not a work in progress. I think that's a contradiction in terms.
I have never argued that climate change should not be our highest priority. Quite the opposite, I think it should be our highest priority. I just think it's perfectly acceptable for those who disagree to make their cases.
If you read the Onion, you will find that almost everything is used for political entertainment. There is nothing to say that something can't be both entertaining and enlightening. More to the point, you and others appear to claim that this particular debate was nothing more than political entertainment. You've offered nothing in the way of evicence to support this claim except to call me obtuse. Nice style of debate.
I would support that as well. In fairness, though, I think you'd be hard pressed to create such a debate that would be accessible to the general public. I suspect that the scientists would disappear into Techsville and most of us wouldn't follow it. Still, I think it's a worth a try. Why don't you e-mail the folks and Munk and suggest it?
If you find the debate objectionable, don't watch it. But also don't presume that you should decide for everyone who should or should not be allowed to express themselves in a public forum. I don't think the debate was the huge disaster that the "NDP uber alles" crowd wants it to be. But even if it was, that's irrelevant. Supporting freedom of speech is a fundamental principle and I don't abandon my fundamental principles because they don't always produce results to my liking.
What I find truly offensive is people who want to stifle public debate because they don't believe the public can handle it. Where would that lead? Who gets to decide which views are OK and which are not allowed to be expressed? And how different is this from thought-crime?
If you don't believe in freedom of speech for those who have ideas you find wrong, you don't believe in it at all.
RM:
"If you find the debate objectionable, don't watch it. But also don't presume that you should decide for everyone who should or should not be allowed to express themselves in a public forum. I don't think the debate was the huge disaster that the "NDP uber alles" crowd wants it to be. But even if it was, that's irrelevant. Supporting freedom of speech is a fundamental principle and I don't abandon my fundamental principles because they don't always produce results to my liking.
What I find truly offensive is people who want to stifle public debate because they don't believe the public can handle it. Where would that lead? Who gets to decide which views are OK and which are not allowed to be expressed? And how different is this from thought-crime?
If you don't believe in freedom of speech for those who have ideas you find wrong, you don't believe in it at all."
But of course, RM,nobody is arguing that they find anything in the debate's content personally "objectionable", it is simply the concern for its effect on others - the same concern that one should have for Goebbels' garbage.
But we must have "freedom of speech" no matter what? I found it very instructive, sitting in a seminar with the late Margaret Laurence many, many moons ago, hearing her pronounce that an American fascist should not be allowed to come to the campus of Trent University and corrupt. Now, Margaret had been fighting against the banning of a couple of her works in schools, not long before that.
Your rigid interpretation of the "freedoms", RM, was never intended for the real world of a fragile humanity that is so open to corruption as it struggles to form ideas about existence.
The film 'The Age of Stupid' makes the point that among the scientific community there is 99% agreement on the validity of global warming, but among the general public that drops to less than 50% certainty.
Incredible, I know. You have to wonder how long it took for the wheel to catch on, but there it is.
To me this suggests an information gap and its not hard to understand how this might be so, when the most commonly available information is tightly controlled through an MSM directed by a reactionary political/economic leadership with vested interests in carbon fuels.
I think to focus on some gameshow construct of winner/loser misses the deeper usefulness of Monbiot and May's appearance. There is nothing instrumental about the opinions of a select few, slow-witted Torontonians. Consider that not only the live audience at the Munk Centre will hear the debate, but a far wider audience through the CBC and the internet. This must surely help to overcome the information deficit, by distributing a message that has so far been effectively muzzled.
This leads to the further question, is the general public capable of correctly assessing the evidence when presented? While the poll at the Munk Debate was discouraging, May and Monbiot's message can only reinforce data the doubters will hear again; sooner or later in the face of this, the shoe will drop, as it has for billions of others around the globe.
There remains, as I noted earlier, the unsettling possibility that the bulk of the population already know the truth in their hearts but, belonging as they do to one of the world's filthiest, energy-intensive cultures they take attacks on global warming personally and in their guilt, reject the evidence - at a sub-rational level - for the more palliative fictions peddled by Lomborg et al. Which will require subtler strategies to disarm, gently disentangling an increasingly solipsistic collective ego from its prior lived experience.
That said, I can only applaud M and M for the guts to stand in front of a fairly hostile audience and speak truth to power. As I noted earlier, on the strength of my last Toronto visit North America is a good decade or more behind Europe and much of the rest of the planet: but consider that capitalist North American society is almost unique in terms of the extent to which it has manifested itself through 'modern' technologies and accordingly has a far more wrenching transition ahead in terms of decarbonizing its modus operandi than denser, older Europe and the as-yet less industrialized nations of the world.
A further point: in the debate that I saw, M and M CONCLUSIVELY defeated their opponents, marshalling harder and more comprehensive data and avoiding the sophomoric parlour tricks of the opposition. Their arguments were far more compelling on both rational and emotional levels. GENUINELY dispassionate observers would be hardpressed IMHO to draw a different conclusion. That the Toronto audience did so USEFULLY indicates the depth of the resistance we are up against and that in itself powerfully advances our understanding of the nature of the task before us.
It is very simple, and not hard to understand at all.....
there was a loss of 8% of people who understood that man made climate change is occuring, after Elizabeth May and Monbiot had the hubris to debate that which needed not to be debated.
You take those same figures and carry them forward to the extrernal public, through people watching the video, and there is a huge net loss of public understanding and awareness/belief.
It does not matter if the choir thought they won the debate, because the choir is biased.
What matters is there was a net loss of 8% which will translate into the external societal demographics with close to the same ratio...
You take those same figures and carry them forward to the extrernal public, through people watching the video, and there is a huge net loss of public understanding and awareness/belief.
Nothing like INFORMATION to contribute to a 'huge net loss of public understanding'.
What threw that unimpeachably scientific poll, that you make so much of - 'please leave your votes with the usher on your way out, before going to the lobby for drinks' - (but then you haven't actually SEEN the debate, yourself, have you? You empiricist you!) was the collision between hard reality and the lifestyle of many of the audience. Nobody likes having their bubble burst and a lot of bubbles were burst that evening, so they punished the messenger. They're fighting a rear-guard action, and their battle was lost long ago. Have a look at today's Guardian, that's what's coming down the pike, even the Harpocons can't fight it forever.
So, what do YOU figure is the way forward on this?
You take those same figures and carry them forward to the extrernal public, through people watching the video, and there is a huge net loss of public understanding and awareness/belief.
Poppycock. Why should the opinions of 1000 present attendees matter so much more than anyone else? The online audience increased their support of the resolution, from a starting position of 72% in favour/28% opposed to after the debate 76%/24%, so the online audience which was double in size of those in the auditorium (2,000 people online vs. 1,050 in the theater) supported the resolution. These results weren't announced at the event though.
____________________________________
One struggle, many fronts.
I don't think my point on the other thread was every addressed.
If it's improper to debate global warming because it will set back the fight by decades, is the NDP making the same mistake in the House of Commons? Have they lent legitimacy to the government's do-nothing approach by debating climate change in Parliament?
They are not debating it, they are putting Bills before the HoC.
Glad I'm on your side, remind.
Sides, dude? We're all looking for the truth. There are no sides here!
Most of the tickets were sold to members of the Munk foundation, the general public hardly had a look-in. Emphatically not a representative sample. Nor is it unthinkable some voted for at the outset only to vote against subsequently to discredit the 'warmists'. That correlates with my own perception of the debate, and it seems, the online community too, which started off warm and ended up....warmer, as Scott notes above.
Moving on...
What you understand and what a holocaust denier understands are two different things. But you've avoided the question. Do you think it is permissible to debate the holocaust, yes or no? I get the feeling you're attempting to evade answeing.
Permissible??? I think that freedom of speech is a fundamental human right. Like all rights, it's balanced by a responsibility to use the freedom in a way that doesn't unduly impinge others freedoms. And like all rights, it has to be subject to reasonable limits, such as hate speech. But the onus shouldn't be on someone to prove why they should be permitted that right, it should be on someone to demonstrate that the exercising of the right has been abused. What is it that is so unique about the holocaust that it alone can't be debated? Or should we pass laws banning debates of all holocausts? As Chomsky put it " It would be a great disservice to the memory of the victims of the Holocaust to adopt one of the basic doctrines of their murderers."
Read that back. It is occurring but it is not a work in progress. I think that's a contradiction in terms.
I have never argued that climate change should not be our highest priority. Quite the opposite, I think it should be our highest priority. I just think it's perfectly acceptable for those who disagree to make their cases.
If you read the Onion, you will find that almost everything is used for political entertainment. There is nothing to say that something can't be both entertaining and enlightening. More to the point, you and others appear to claim that this particular debate was nothing more than political entertainment. You've offered nothing in the way of evicence to support this claim except to call me obtuse. Nice style of debate.
I would support that as well. In fairness, though, I think you'd be hard pressed to create such a debate that would be accessible to the general public. I suspect that the scientists would disappear into Techsville and most of us wouldn't follow it. Still, I think it's a worth a try. Why don't you e-mail the folks and Munk and suggest it?
If you find the debate objectionable, don't watch it. But also don't presume that you should decide for everyone who should or should not be allowed to express themselves in a public forum. I don't think the debate was the huge disaster that the "NDP uber alles" crowd wants it to be. But even if it was, that's irrelevant. Supporting freedom of speech is a fundamental principle and I don't abandon my fundamental principles because they don't always produce results to my liking.
What I find truly offensive is people who want to stifle public debate because they don't believe the public can handle it. Where would that lead? Who gets to decide which views are OK and which are not allowed to be expressed? And how different is this from thought-crime?
If you don't believe in freedom of speech for those who have ideas you find wrong, you don't believe in it at all.
You're quite full of yourself, aren't you? Are you responding to what I've said, or what you would like me to have said?
Let's be clear what we're talking about, here, because you seem to be inferring statements that haven't been made which is inherently dishonest. This is not a debate about freedom of speech or the right to speech. This is a debate about whether Monbiott and May, neither scientists, but one who is a politician, and one who is a journalist, who both state global warming is the greatest threat to humanity, are right or plainly stupid, to argue deniers. It has nothing to do with if they have the legal right to do so. It has everything to do with whether they ought to.
Likewise, my question about the holocaust, which you continue to dance around (speech is a fundamental human right subject to subjective interpretations of what someone else deems offensive), it is not a question of whether it is a human right but whether it's proper.
In both cases, giving a platform to the political and social deniers merely lends legitimacy to their views and undermines efforts to move beyond whether it be mitigation or laws that prevent hate from ever achieving a similar political critical mass.
Again, yes, if people want to attend such debates, they will, and they do. The argument, once more as you seem to have trouble grasping its simplicity, is that May and Monbiot ought not to be giving legitimacy, through their own, to the deniers. Does doing so serve the broader interest they claim to serve and which they say is dire, or does it serve the political ambitions of one, and the journalistic ambitions of another?
You are obtuse. Grossly obtuse. This is simple an argument over (poor) judgment.
Here si an example:
Read that back. It is occurring but it is not a work in progress. I think that's a contradiction in terms.
Is gravity a work in progress? You are decontextualizing your own words. When you said AGW was a work in progress you obviously meant whether human contribution to global warning had been established. Now you seem to be suggesting that because science can't fully predict the impact of AGW, that makes it a work in progress. And even if I interpreted your words incorrectly, the response is still BS. If we put a family of six into a sedan and speed it at 70 Kph into a brick wall, we pretty much know what will happen even if we can't say exactly what will happen and we would not call it a work in progress, we would call it murder.
So, please, get real.
Am glad I am on your side, as it really is about the ability to think things through, as opposed to phoney posturing
You are obtuse. Grossly obtuse.
That's called an ad hominem and it's contrary to babble policy - which you agreed to when you signed up.
Let me know if you can debate without resorting to name-calling.
"Obtuse" is name calling?
who knew.....
Obtuseness is a tactic as is hyperbole. Keep grasping.
The film 'The Age of Stupid' makes the point that among the scientific community there is 99% agreement on the validity of global warming, but among the general public that drops to less than 50% certainty.
But how can that be? Is it just the MSM? No.
one of the best proofs of climate disinformation came in a November 2002 memo from political consultant Frank Luntz to the U.S. Republican Party. Luntz followed the rules: he did the research; he identified the soft spots in public opinion; and he made a clever critical judgment about which way the public could be induced to move.
In a section entitled "Winning the Global Warming Debate," Luntz says this:
"The Scientific Debate Remains Open. Voters believe that there is no consensus about global warming within the scientific community. Should the public come to believe that the scientific issues are settled, their views about global warming will change accordingly. Therefore, you need to make the lack of scientific certainty a primary issue in the debate, and defer to scientists and other experts in the field."
http://www.desmogblog.com/slamming-the-climate-skeptic-scam
The perception of a debate where none exists is exactly the raison d'etre of the denial lobby. So conducting a debate only reinforces the very message the denial lobby has spent tens of millions, perhaps billions, promoting.
I think to focus on some gameshow construct of winner/loser misses the deeper usefulness of Monbiot and May's appearance. There is nothing instrumental about the opinions of a select few, slow-witted Torontonians. Consider that not only the live audience at the Munk Centre will hear the debate, but a far wider audience through the CBC and the internet. This must surely help to overcome the information deficit, by distributing a message that has so far been effectively muzzled.
Yes, and again, from the perspective of the denial lobby, this is a big win. Both Monbiot and May agree there is a debate to be had. The issue is not settled.
This leads to the further question, is the general public capable of correctly assessing the evidence when presented? While the poll at the Munk Debate was discouraging, May and Monbiot's message can only reinforce data the doubters will hear again; sooner or later in the face of this, the shoe will drop, as it has for billions of others around the globe.
As indicated above, yes. The goal of the denial lobby is to create doubt. Who wants to sacrifice if there may be no reason to do so?
That said, I can only applaud M and M for the guts to stand in front of a fairly hostile audience and speak truth to power. As I noted earlier, on the strength of my last Toronto visit North America is a good decade or more behind Europe and much of the rest of the planet: but consider that capitalist North American society is almost unique in terms of the extent to which it has manifested itself through 'modern' technologies and accordingly has a far more wrenching transition ahead in terms of decarbonizing its modus operandi than denser, older Europe and the as-yet less industrialized nations of the world.
They didn't speak truth to power. They were used by the denial lobby to futher the perception there is a debate and therefore no consensus. May and Monbiot lost the debate the moment they agreed to participate in it.
Merowe:
"Sides, dude? We're all looking for the truth. There are no sides here!"
Since that is your only comment on anything I've written - and that was a lighthearted show of solidarity accompanied by a smiley - I just have to add, you bet your bloody boots there are "sides" on the issue of the public's perception of climate change. I cannot stomach the thought of giving ammunition to the bastards who say we are not going to have to make huge lifestyle shifts...like the sponsors of that demonstration of freedom. What good boys and girls we are for particiipating. How predictable the need for people to want psychological support and justification for their way of life, and that of their descendants.
Damned right there are sides, "dude".
Proclaiming the debate 'closed', when half the electorate hasn't yet reached that conclusion, is obtusely arrogant and offensive. That, in itself, is enough to prompt some of us dullards to 'vote against them proclaimers', in the interest of choosing sides, or vanity (if that's what it's all about). Cognito ego sum?
saying any political debate is "closed" is always a bit weird,
given the number of possible points of view:
http://www.oism.org/pproject/
For the record: I believe that climate change is caused, primarily, by either 200+ years of industrial GHG emissions, or dinosaur farts. I'm still undecided, but with the eminent wisdom and patience of a few resident babblers, I'm happy to report that I'm progressing nicely, and ready to emerge from the Mesozoic era. In time, I might even get along with some of the early hominids that habitate this space--but that's still eons from where I am now!
saying any political debate is "closed" is always a bit weird,
given the number of possible points of view:
http://www.oism.org/pproject/
The scientific debate is apparently 'closed' (some have even elevated climate theory to the status of [un]natural law), but the political deliberations remain open, vigorous and fraught with treachery. Kind of like Dungeons and Dragons. Much sorcery, from the usual sources.
Proclaiming the debate 'closed', when half the electorate hasn't yet reached that conclusion, is obtusely arrogant and offensive. That, in itself, is enough to prompt some of us dullards to 'vote against them proclaimers', in the interest of choosing sides, or vanity (if that's what it's all about). Cognito ego sum?
So you debate gravity and evololution also? You would join the denialists in killing off our planet if I told you the debate was closed on gravity and evolution?
It is such stupidity that confirms to me the new dark age is already upon us.
Proclaiming the debate 'closed', when half the electorate hasn't yet reached that conclusion, is obtusely arrogant and offensive. That, in itself, is enough to prompt some of us dullards to 'vote against them proclaimers', in the interest of choosing sides, or vanity (if that's what it's all about). Cognito ego sum?
So you debate gravity and evololution also? You would join the denialists in killing off our planet if I told you the debate was closed on gravity and evolution?
It is such stupidity that confirms to me the new dark age is already upon us.
I think you might care more about the planet than the sensibilities of people living on it (we're just know-nothing parasites, I suppose), you certainly don't seem to care about their opinions, which is something that is usually brought to debate.
As for gravity and evolution, the former is a scientific law, the latter a theory (albeit a convincing one, for me). Climate change is certainly not a law, but has merit as a theory, and there may not be time enough to prove it. So, you expect all of us stupid people to accept your belief as an article of faith. If you knew anything about the Dark Ages, you'd know that it was a time of mass hysteria. I think you're confusing science with politics. One is in the service of the other. You can decide which is which.
Now I think I'll retreat to my hovel, throw some peat on the fire, and lay down in my own filth.
I think you might care more about the planet than the sensibilities of people living on it (we're just know-nothing parasites, I suppose), you certainly don't seem to care about their opinions, which is something that is usually brought to debate.
As for gravity and evolution, the former is a scientific law, the latter a theory (albeit a convincing one, for me). Climate change is certainly not a law, but has merit as a theory, and there may not be time enough to prove it. So, you expect all of us stupid people to accept your belief as an article of faith. If you knew anything about the Dark Ages, you'd know that it was a time of mass hysteria. I think you're confusing science with politics. One is in the service of the other. You can decide which is which.
Now I think I'll retreat to my hovel, throw some peat on the fire, and lay down in my own filth.
Reconsider your first sentence. You can't give two craps about the people living on the planet unless you also care deeply about the planet. The planet is not dependent on human life, but, you know what? Human life is completely dependent on the planet. Imagine!
Gravity is not a law. It may be a fact, but it is not a law. Gravity remains a theory (to the best of my understanding) because we can't explain it with absolute certainty. Climate change is not a law. It is a fact. Like gravity and evolution, we can observe it, we can measure it, we can make predictions based on our observations and measurements.
One does not believe in climate change any more than one believes in gravity or evolution. You merely understand them to the best of your capaities or you don't. The climate denialist camp is, however, based on faith and belief as most deniers have not ever read even the most basic of the science. Their sources of information is pundits, Fox News, and each other supplemented by a few denialists within the scientific community and often directly or indirectly supported by oil and coal industry dollars.
Do you believe that every action has an equal and opposite reaction? That is the third law of Newton, who formulated the theory on gravity. So if you accept scientific law, then you must also accept that the act of increasing the amount of green house gases in the atmosphere by more than 50% (and rising) must induce a reaction of an opposite and equal force. And what will that be? And, of course, every subsequent action must also have an equal and opposite reaction: a chain reaction impacting all planetary systems (think positive feedback loops) of ocean, atmosphere, and land.
The dark ages was not only an age of mass hysteria. Every age is an age of mass hysteria. The dark ages was a period of triumph of superstition and religious excess over rationale and science. Not unlike today.
Look if you were married with kids and if 9 out of 10 doctors said you needed emergency treatment to survive an illness and you went with the 10th because you didn't like what the first 9 were telling you, my impression of you would be something less than that of respect.
As it is, we live on a planet with 7 billion people and the best experts we have are telling us, and have been telling us, we face catastrophic consequences if we don't reduce our atmospheric emissions of green house gases. Not every opinion on the matter is valid and not every opinion is equal.
The political debate ought to be about how we address our global responsibility in the most timely way possible and not whether we believe the science. Incredibly, most are debating the validity of a scientific theory that they haven't even bothered to learn and understand. If that's not the dark ages I'm not sure how to better describe it.
A basic primer
Common misconceptions:
1) A law is better than a theory.
2) When a theory is proved it will turn into a law.
Neither is true. They are different scientific concepts. Which is why there is both a law of gravity and a theory of gravity.
From wikipedia:
"Scientific laws are similar to scientific theories in that they are principles that can be used to predict the behavior of the natural world. Both scientific laws and scientific theories are typically well-supported by observations and/or experimental evidence. Usually scientific laws refer to rules for how nature will behave under certain conditions.[7] Scientific theories are more overarching explanations of how nature works and why it exhibits certain characteristics.
A common misconception is that scientific theories are rudimentary ideas that will eventually graduate into scientific laws when enough data and evidence has been accumulated. A theory does not change into a scientific law with the accumulation of new or better evidence. A theory will always remain a theory, a law will always remain a law."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory
Neither is true. They are different scientific concepts. Which is why there is both a law of gravity and a theory of gravity. "
And Jesus walked on water, denying both.
Oh the world is gone in 2012 person, no freakin wonder the world is in such a mess, personally I cannot wait until 2012 is gone, and all those who believed in the nonsense are suffering from severe depression and wondering how they could have been so spectacularily lacking in wits...
Common misconceptions:
1) A law is better than a theory.
2) When a theory is proved it will turn into a law.
Neither is true. They are different scientific concepts. Which is why there is both a law of gravity and a theory of gravity.
From wikipedia:
"Scientific laws are similar to scientific theories in that they are principles that can be used to predict the behavior of the natural world. Both scientific laws and scientific theories are typically well-supported by observations and/or experimental evidence. Usually scientific laws refer to rules for how nature will behave under certain conditions.[7] Scientific theories are more overarching explanations of how nature works and why it exhibits certain characteristics.
A common misconception is that scientific theories are rudimentary ideas that will eventually graduate into scientific laws when enough data and evidence has been accumulated. A theory does not change into a scientific law with the accumulation of new or better evidence. A theory will always remain a theory, a law will always remain a law."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory
The effects of gravity in every day life can easily be tested and retested. The results of the tests can be predicted with a high degree of accuracy. Try that with global warming.
And that is why comparing global warming to gravity is just about as silly as comparing global warming skeptics to holocaust deniers.
I think the best honest argument for reducing our carbon output goes like this:
Nobody knows for sure the long term effects of increasing the concentrations of carbon dioxide and that means we're conducting a massive experiment with our one and only atmosphere. The best information currently available suggests the outcomes will be bad, particularly for those people who are already severely disadvantaged. There is also a significant chance that the outcomes will be catastrophic, raising sea levels by up to 40 metres and inundating coastal cities around the world, causing famines that result in mass starvation, and substantially reducing the carrying capacity of the planet. We can't afford to wait for the science to be perfect. It may already be too late to reverse the damage.
The point is we do know. It is observable and measurable and the outcome predictable. That is why denying warming is like denying evolution. You know, the creationists argue, also, that evolution can't be proven even though just as with warming, we are able to observe evolution:
Researchers have discovered that the enthusiasm of many Britons for feeding birds in winter and the gradual warming of the British Isles due to climate change
have helped change the appearance of the blackcap, a warbler as commonly recognized in European gardens as robins are in North America.
The differences have been modest, involving a slightly altered beak size and wing shape, according a paper on the finding published online in the journal Current Biology, but they've occurred in just a few decades, a pace that has stunned scientists.
“What's really catching people's attention with this paper is the speed at which evolution can manifest itself in short periods of time,” said Keith Hobson, a research scientist in Saskatoon with Environment Canada who helped with the study. Mr. Hobson said it was like seeing evolution “happening before our eyes.”
interesting and great analogy
Frustrated Mess: Mea Culpa. In deference to you, the Union of Concerned Scientists, and the warbler, I promise not to spite the debate closers by voting with the deniers.
FM: "Researchers have discovered that the enthusiasm of many Britons for feeding birds in winter and the gradual warming of the British Isles due to climate change
have helped change the appearance of the blackcap, a warbler as commonly recognized in European gardens as robins are in North America."
And England's gift to North America, the common house sparrow, grows fat as hell on foxtail millet (in the micro environment of my backyard, anyway). Their wings will have to grow larger to lift them from the ground... Although cats and hawks are persuaded not to feed on the weak, there should be changes observed over a couple of generations. The first snowless November on record - nothing to scratch down into for feed - has certainly encouraged them to eat up.