>The problem with this kind of thinking is that it does not base itself on
>widely-known and generally-accepted facts about biodiversity impacts or
anthropogenic
>climate change. Whenever we have the discussion with Jim Heartfield he simply
>denies that climate change is occurring, or that we are living thru a mass
>extinction. You can't argue with people who are simply not interested in the
>facts. Mr Lazare's complacency comes in the same category.
Well, without taking any sides in this debate, I'd maintain that 'facts' do not demonstrate themselves, they need to be positively established by those who calim them. It is not a good strategy to count on sympathetic audience in this respect.
So what could possibly prove that:
- what specifically happens that qualifies as a climate change _and_ - that climate change will have a negative impact in the reasonably near future; _and_ - that climate change is reversible within our means; - the numbers of animals and plants than die are greater than those that are born, _and_ - the unfavorable birth/death rate is unusual in the natural history of the planet, _and_ - that unfavorable birth/death rate is not a short term trend, _and_ - that unfavorable birth/death rate is reversible within our means?
What is the quality of evidence that supports the above? How is that evidence and its quality apparent to lay audience?
Again, I am not denying or confirming anything -- what I am asking is how would you establish those facts for a non-believer - without jargon or obscure references?
Regards,
Wojtek Sokolowski