When scientific questions are elevated to public significance they are debated in a way that is utterly nonscientific -- eloquence, prejudice, even ridicule sway public opinion when facts are perceived as too arcane for the populace to understand. So, today, I invite you to use scientific techniques to address a fundamental point in the global warming debate.
Is it reasonable to expect the general populace to be scientifically literate? We expect citizens to be able to read, why not expect them to remember a little high school science? Or is the problem that scientists so rarely invite the populace to the argument that it is unreasonable to expect them to know the language?
Here's your invitation: calculate the percentage increase in the carbon dioxide content of the atmosphere due to the oil that people burned last year. As you can see, this argument rather lacks eloquence.
