[jquery]

Being skeptical of political crusades and trendy beliefs is very different from being a "denier". We can scarcely predict the weather one day in advance. Being skeptical of global climate predictions spanning decades is hardly on the same level as denying the internal combustion engine. And even if you accept the premise of global warming, as I do, it's a big stretch to make lifestyle recommendations based on that, and an even bigger stretch to start regulating personal eating habits.

[pessimizer]

We can scarcely predict the average of three dice rolls, but over a series the average becomes trivial.

[chrisjsmith]

Unless you roll a thousand 6's.

[jessedhillon]

> We can scarcely predict the weather one day in advance. Being skeptical of global climate predictions spanning decades is hardly on the same level as denying the internal combustion engine.

Your analogy disregards the difference in degrees of wrongness involved here. We cannot predict the temperature of the air above your house at 3:28pm tomorrow. We can predict within N degrees the average temperature for the next 30 days, for some N.

We can definitely predict the average temperature for next summer -- we can't say with any certainty how hot it will be on August 8, 2012. However, this failure doesn't negate our ability to identify trends and patterns on a macro-scale.

Global warming is a macro-scale event. It's always possible that black swans will upturn our knowledge and ruin our predictions. Climate change deniers essentially appeal to this aspect of human nature -- that we cannot plan for random events with very large consequences.

But we don't plan for the black swans, we plan for our predictions and, with a healthy dose of skepticism, we remember that the map is not the territory.

And by the way, deniers bet it all that the black swan will be a leveling off or even drop in temperatures. That earthmoving event could also be that temperature increase is actually exponential, not linear as it seems now.

[jquery]

> Climate change deniers essentially appeal to this aspect of human nature -- that we cannot plan for random events with very large consequences.

It's one thing to plan for a random event. It's another thing to propose trillions of dollars in taxes (both monetary and regulatory), wealth that could be used to further the human race by pursuing causes such as education, poverty, hunger, disease, standards of living, and advancing technology.

[chrisjsmith]

Thank you for articulating my point better than me.