Weird. Why are scientific arguments used to combat philisophical ideals? While science cannot know the future with accuracy, we could probably figure out the cost of burning fuel, environmental damage done by oil spills, etc. and the future cost of materials made from petroleum once that resource is scarce. We could add an appropriate tax. If phased in over five years or so, our economy would have time to change. We might sell less gas and oil, but probably more of other items. If our economy cannot change (evolve) that fast, who expects that sensitive ecosystems could evolve at even 1/10 that speed?
Nature is represented not by equilibrium, but by transition points, such as phase changes in something as simple as water. You can add a lot of heat at 99.9deg C with no noticable change. However suddenly a dramatic change occurs and you get steam. Or, maybe more important, you can add heat at 0deg C for quite a while until you get water. A tiny bit of melting could cause enormous quantities of ice to plunge into the oceans, raising sea levels overnight.
I don't think more evidence is the key to changing behavior, because the side that wants evidence for global warming will _always_ say they want more. This is their basic philosophy: more is better. Until the fallacy of this philosophy is shown, no amount of evidence will ever be enough. If global warming is ever proven, the arugment will just move on to "and is that a bad thing?"
But what has to be understood is that an argument is not taking place. You can talk to a wall all day long, but it isn't going to turn into a door.
