--- Gautam John <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Newsweek Disgrace: 'Global-Warming Deniers: A > Well-Funded Machine' > By Noel Sheppard | August 5, 2007 - 13:43 ET
I find it interesting that this article appears to be more critical of the politics behind the position than the actual science. I do agree that attributing scepticism to bad science or bad intentions is deplorable. The interesting thing to ask, IMHO, is: what does the majority scientific community position on (a) is the climate changing? (b) is it probable that the climate change is attributable to human interference ? AFAIK, there is a very broad consensus on (a), with some dissenters suggesting global cooling rather than global warming, and much more variance on (b), with opinions ranging across - yes, we can and should so something to correct it - yes, but nothing we do will change things enough - maybe, we should get more data to be sure - maybe, but the human factor only accelerates something that nature already started - no, nature is responsible Good science means all these hypotheses can and should be examined and tested. As of now, the majority of the scientific community does seem to believe that human intervention is at least a significant contributor to global climate change. Given that we all have a significant stake in maintaining decent living conditions on the planet, wouldn't the pragmatic view be to act as though that were true, until and unless there is compelling evidence to the contrary? cheers, Divya
