First off, no one knows if global warming is taking place, and secondly, we ahve a really poor grasp as to what factors control climate. Certainly the data is not strong enough to justify the fuzzy-headed solutions being proposed by some.

The reason why better climatologists participate in the Cambridge Conference is because they noticed severe climatic disruptions which appear to have been caused by impact - and this is a really, really, really, bad problem.

And damn few of these climatologists have much of a problem with Dr. Peiser's other pet peeve, which is the kind of hysterical nonsense on global warming that some try to pass off as science.

Off the top of my head, current NASA estimates of short term warming are roughly 1.6 degrees, with .8 of that ascirbed to solar fluctuations. But that estimate has a very high degree of uncertainty, and it is not clear at all that the other .8 degree is the direct result of carbon dioxide - something else may be in play, running from Freon adn the ozone, to cow farts, to asphalt roads -

Given the weakness of that data, it scarcely justifies the hundreds of billions in economic dislocations proposed as a solution. Another interesting thing is that nearly everyone tries to duck out of supporting clean nuclear energy as a way of reducing CO2 emissions...

ep