"Truth" is what each individual perceives to be "true".
When multiple people in a societal group accept the same view, it becomes a common "truth", or "common sense".
As others have remarked, we (human society) have inbuilt genetic and sociological mechanisms which assist (and/or inhibit) this necessarily cumulative process.
If enough people "believe" that MMCC is NOT 'real' - that is, it is a fiction rather than a "truth" - then it will not exist as a "truth" - for them!
But this does not prevent the wider ACTUALITY of the EFFECTS of MMCC being felt - such as rising sea levels and weather changes - we simply will not have any 'acceptable' explanation for the occurrence of these phenomena.
Rather like lightning, pre- Benjamin Franklin, or gravity pre- Isaac Newton. These phenomena were attributed to 'God' and this was 'accepted' as the 'truth' at the time.
So, essentially, the denialists are taking human society backwards, in evolutionary terms, to a point where we may end up blaming rising sea levels on 'giant squid farting', or on the fluctations in the fortunes of 'King Neptune', or even on 'God'.
The difference between THIS version of truth, and the 'accepted scientific wisdom' of MMCC is that scientists have set up experiments attempting to DIS-prove the theory and have only succeeded in finding further evidence to SUPPORT the theory of MMCC.
That 97% of climate scientists support this 'truth' ought to be enough for all but the lunatic fringe.
That it is not just the lunatic fringe, and, more importantly, that the lunatic fringe gets such a hearing in 'mainstream' media, says as much about media cycles and the need for 'sensation' or 'controversy' in a field for it to be considered 'newsworthy', as it does any other thing that might be influencing such 'common sense'.
The curious notion of the "right" to 'freedom of expression' means that we are, alas, forced to read/listen to the ravings of lunatics like Monckton and Alan Jones.
And thus, those members of the population who have either short attention spans, no time (or ability) to research such complex issues for themselves, are lead by the nose up the garden path of 'non-truth' by these blatant charlatans and 'fame-chasers'.
Alas, the acceptance of that "right" as a common truth is NOT balanced by the capacity to refute such nonsense, or any regulation or 'rules' which provide for this.
Media organisations are required to "report" both 'sides' of a story - even if one 'side' is patently false and bordering on the imbecile.
Sorry......but am I the only person who can see that this is fundamentally stupid?
At least the large feature article on Monckton in the Good Weekend went a long way towards showing him up for what he really is - a scare-mongering 'fame-chaser' with an inherently feeble grip on 'reality' and 'truth'.
It's perhaps a pity that article will never appear in The Australian or The Daily Telegraph.
No doubt, if it did, it would be accompanied by an editorial pillorying the writer as a 'communist', a 'do-gooder-leftie' or a 'bleeding heart liberal', never mind the ultimate slur, 'a greenie'.
It strikes me that such descriptors, and the bile that accompanies them, is in fact a corollary of the notion of "rights" we have allowed ourselves to generate unchecked over the past 40 years or so.
Ordinary people - especially the less well-educated - have adopted the notion of "rights" without having been apprised of the absolutely reciprocal "duties" and "responsibilities without which the 'rights' cannot exist.
People are quick to claim 'rights' but very slow to accept 'responsibility' for the *consequences* of such claims.
For example, if we are to claim a 'right' to fresh, breathable, air, then incumbent upon that claim is the reciprocal 'duty' to ensure that the air is kept clean and breathable, and thus we have an inherent 'responsibility' to ensure that it is kept so, by education, and regulation where necessary.
No-one would dispute the "truth" of the above statement if the words 'potable water' were substituted for 'breathable air'.
Thus I draw the conclusion that the 'failure' of the MMCC proponents to 'get the message across' is largely down to a failing by the WHOLE of human society to accept the 'duties and responsibilities' that go hand in hand with our claims to certain 'rights'.
Many people now claim as a 'right' the ability to be able to drive a fossil-fuel-powered automobile; or equally absurdly, the 'right' to operate a fossil-fired-electric-powered air-conditioner, to alter their own personal and immediate micro-climate.
I contend that while human society does NOT accept - as a fundamental "truth" - the notion that we MUST accept, embrace even, the 'duties and responsibilities' that are a necessary corollary of every 'right' we claim, the argument for MMCC is on a sticky wicket.
Of course, after sea levels HAVE risen, and millions of people displaced, they will no doubt attempt to claim a 'right' to have been protected, and require the 'right' to compensation from those governments who did not so 'protect' them!
So in a certain sense, our Federal govts desire to implement the CT can be seen as a forward-risk management strategy, designed to reduce the compensation load on the future budget.
Somehow I can't see The Gabbling Parrot or the Mad Monk, never mind Lord Loonie, giving Gillard any credit for this demonstration of her govt's financial foresight.
