How do AGW debaters resolve problems that do not have black-and-white answers?

How about k?

k) Use the MRI Contrast Agent

This is a scientific experiment that "allow physicians to peer directly into patients' blood vessels and find dangerous cholesterol-filled plaques before they rupture and cause a heart attack."

or l

l) the use of cardiac magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) to view heart damage

So what would be the scientific test to show global warming?

I'd begin to cut back on the fried food (h), get a 2nd opinion, and go to the library, bookstore and online to find out what I could do to get my life in order so that I could hang around the planet while my grandson grows up, my son gets married and starts a family, and I could stay healthy enough to try Mt. Whitney again. Not something you want to do if you're a candidate for a heart attack.

Good analogy, I'm sure many will deflect your sword with their sabers.

Hmm I'd have to go with

k) I was watching this Alien Autopsy documentary, and they concluded the alien had died of a heart attack. Since aliens don't eat fried food, it can't be the cause of heart attacks.

But you know what humans and aliens have in common? Breathing oxygen. That's why the aliens came to Earth. So if I just stop breathing oxygen, I won't have a heart attack. Problem solved.

Seriously though, I'd sure as hell stop eating fried food, and do tons of research to see what else I could do to minimize my risk of a heart attack.

In relation to AGW, what I've done is reduce my personal carbon footprint, studied the science thoroughly, and taken every step I can think of to address the problem. Pretty similar.

What if your cardiologist says you need an operation to survive. If you have this operation there is a good chance you might die. Now there are many other cardiologists (not one like you say) who disagree with him. No operation is necessary and all will be fine. What do you do?

The notion we can cut back today on co2 emissions without any consequences is a myth. There are billions of people on this planet who have seen their standards of living expand tremendously because of cheap energy. People who think that we can cut co2 emissions without any consequences are the true deniers.

Edit: Ken. Any solutions without nuclear power is economic catastrophe. While I appreciate the fact that you are for it, unfortunately, the obstacle to nuclear power is not by the skeptics but the environmental movement.

I'd tell the doctor I'm a 30 year old male with no family history of heart disease, a resting heart rate of 60, BP of 80/60, and as a Southerner, I'm not giving up my grandma's chicken! I then tell him to stop harassing strangers in the parking lot to drum up support for legislation against KFC. That'd be answer "k".

Edit (Ken): Must be a blue moon rising tonight...great answer! There's a good chance one of your suggestions would've been my top choice on such a quiz!

Edit (Adam): No, it isn't a "b". Kook on street claiming to be a heart specialist announces fried food causes heart attacks. The question becomes, "Through what mechanism?" Kook then states fried foods are high in bad cholesterol, causing a build up of plaque in the circulatory system, eventually leading to coronary distress and failure. "How does one check the plaque levels in one's circulatory system?" You can have invasive procedures done, you can have imaging procedures performed, or you can measure your BP as a proxy. Having recently checked my BP, I can reasonably assume I am in no danger of having excessive plaque build up, thus I can continue to reap the benefits of a high protein and tasty diet of fried chicken. In my case it isn't "likely, with little proof". In my case, the evidence proves otherwise.

A much better analogy would have been smoking. Science still doesn't fully understand how carcenogens cause cancer....they only have statistical data to apply this label on substances.

So your assuming that we all are going to die from a heart attack? How about a bee sting, spider bite, slip and fall, auto accidents, natural catastrophes...etc. I don't buy into this question, but I can relate to the speculation on GW. Hey!... if everything is working, why fix it(as if you could)? Your just going to make it or something else worse.

ed: no I just gave a subjective answer to a subjective question. That's the problem with question like these. I don't have a history of heart problems, so why pretend that I do?

What does eating fried food = eating unhealthy and being a heart attack candidate have to do with the Earth going through natural cyclical changes? Seeing as how it's a dynamic living environment. Who is to say temperatures have to stay constant from one year to the next?

1.b 2 BS in Chemistry, additional year to be certified to teach HS. 3. 49 4. Hard Core Conservative. (I think Reagan was a flaming Liberal). 5. United States.

To make this question more realistic, we would first have to assume our doctor was from the 18th century, because climatology is most definitely in it's infancy. To say that modern cardiologists and so-called climate experts are on a level playing field is ludicrous. 18th century doctors might recommend you get a "bleeding," which probably would be comparable to modern climate experts recommending we cut back on CO2, truly the life blood of our planet.

What a cardiologist says is based on real science. GW is based on leftist politics.

But maybe, since you mention it, it's time Al stopped eating so much.